HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11730/2019

1. Mst. Roopa Devi W/o Late Shri Thakar Ram S/o Late Shri
Ishar Ram, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)

2. Chandoo Ram S/o Late Shri Thakar Ram S/o Late Shri
Ishar Ram, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Vill. Kishanpura, Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh.

3. Sattoo Ram S/o Late Shri Thakar Ram S/o Late Shri Ishar
Ram, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill.
Kishanpura, Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh.

4. Leeloo Ram S/o Late Shri Thakar Ram S/o Late Shri Ishar
Ram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill.
Kishanpura, Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh.

5. Smt. Kamma Devi D/o Late Shri Thakar Ram, Aged About
52 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill. Kishanpura,
Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh.

6. Smt. Gogi Devi D/o Late Shri Thakar Ram, Aged About 50
Years, W/o Shri Krishan Lal, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill.
Kishanpura, Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. LRs Of Sahi Ram, (Deceased)

2. Pat Ram S/o Late Shri Ishwar Ram, By Caste Meghwal,
R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

3. Lal Chand S/o Late Shri Ishar Ram, By Caste Meghwal,
R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. Mukh Ram, (Deceased)

5. The Sub-Registrar, Hanumangarh.

6. The Tehsildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh.

7. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Sahi Ram, By Caste
Meghwal, R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

8. Sheopat Ram S/o Late Shri Sahi Ram, By Caste Meghwal,

(Downloaded on 30/01/2020 at 08:43:37 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-11730/2019]

R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

9. Tana Ram S/o Late Shri Sahi Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh
(Raj.).

10. Pappu Ram S/o Late Shri Sahi Ram, By Caste Meghwal,
R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

11. Indraj S/o Late Shri Sahi Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh
(Raj.).

12. Gomati Devi D/o Shri Sahi Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh
(Raj.).

13. Tikoo Ram S/o Late Shri Mukh Ram, (Deceased)

14. Raghuvir S/o Late Shri Mukh Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh
(Raj.).

15. Madan Lal S/o Late Shri Mukh Ram, By Caste Meghwal,
R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

16. Bhaga Ram S/o Late Shri Mukh Ram, By Caste Meghwal,
R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

17. Smt. Khetoo Devi W/o Late Shri Mukh Ram, By Caste
Meghwal, R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).

18. Smt. Pushta Devi D/o Late Shri Mukh Ram W/o Shri
Malkeet Singh, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill. Nagrana,
Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

19. Smt. Parmeshwari D/o Late Shri Mukh Ram W/o Shri Om
Prakash, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Pacca Bhadwa, Teh. And
Dist. Hanumangarh.

20. Mst. Seema Devi W/o Late Shri Tikoo Ram S/o Late Shri
Mukh Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill. Kishanpura
Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

21. Desh Raj @ Suresh S/o Late Shri Tikoo Ram S/o Late Shri
Mukh Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill. Kishanpura
Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

(Downloaded on 30/01/2020 at 08:43:37 PM)

(3 of 5) [CW-11730/2019]

22. Deepu @ Daleep S/o Late Shri Tikoo Ram S/o Late Shri
Muhk Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill. Kishanpura
Dikhnada, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

23. Saroj D/o Late Shri Tikoo Ram S/o Late Shri Mukh Ram,
By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill. Kishanpura Dikhnada, Tehsil
And Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

24. Manju D/o Shri Tikoo Ram S/o Shri Mukh Ram W/o Shri
Sharvan Kumar, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Vill. Dhudiyawali,
P.o. Dhudiyawali, Tehsil Ranian, District Sirsa.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik.

For Respondent(s) :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

28/01/2020

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved

against the order dated 10/78/2019 passed by the Addl. District

Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby, the appeal filed by the

respondents against the order dated 21/2/2019 passed by the trial

court granting injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 2 CPC has

been allowed and the application filed by the petitioners has been

rejected.

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent

injunction, along with the suit an application seeking temporary

injunction was also filed. The trial court by its order dated

21/2/2019 restrained the respondents from mortgaging,

transferring or selling the disputed agricultural land.

Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal before the

court of Addl. District Judge. The appellate court came to the

conclusion that the petitioners herein had suppressed material

(Downloaded on 30/01/2020 at 08:43:37 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-11730/2019]

facts with regard to adoption of their father by his maternal grand

mother and that acting as adopted son, he had transferred land

owned by his maternal parents. The plea raised pertaining to

illegality of registered adoption deed of the year 1951 was

rejected on the ground that as per Section 30 of the Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’), the

provisions were not applicable to the adoption which took place

prior to the said Act coming into force and consequently allowed

the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently made

submissions that the first appellate court committed grave error in

accepting the appeal filed by the respondents. Submissions were

made that the alleged finding of suppression has no substance

inasmuch as the fact of adoption was already indicated in the

plaint and along with the said indication it was also submitted that

the allegations were false.

Submissions have been made that the entire material

pertaining to the petitioners’ father established his identity at

various places along with his natural father and not the adopted

parents and, therefore, the plea raised by the defendants in the

suit had no substance and the trial court was, therefore, justified

in granting injunction.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioners and have perused the material available on

record.

The first appellate court has meticulously dealt with the

issues and has categorically come to the conclusion that besides

the registered adoption deed, which could not be questioned on

account of non-applicability of the Act of 1956, it also relied on the

(Downloaded on 30/01/2020 at 08:43:37 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-11730/2019]

conduct of the petitioners’ father in transferring the land belonging

to his maternal grand parents by claiming himself to be their

adopted son by way of registered sale deed and several other

pleas, as raised by the petitioners, were negated.

The findings of the first appellate court while reversing the

order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse so as

to require interference by this Court.

So far as the plea raised by the petitioners pertaining to

identity of the petitioners’ father by way of various documents,

claiming himself to be the son of his natural father is concerned,

the conduct of the petitioners’ father in transferring the land

belonging to his maternal grand parents is writ large and the said

aspect has not been denied and, therefore, the subsequent

conduct would have no implication.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in

the order impugned is made out. The writ petition has no

substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

20-baweja/-

(Downloaded on 30/01/2020 at 08:43:37 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)