Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 579 (PNJ)

Dharam Vir Singh v. Roop Ram

2003-04-24

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2003
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rewari, dated 20.5.2000 and the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rewari, dated 22.12.2000 by which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Ram Partap claimed that he is one of the sons of Roop Ram and that he has l/4th share in the ancestral property. It was averred that the suit property was transferred by his father Roop Ram in favour of Matadeen. Ram Krishan and Hazari Lal who are also sons of Roop Ram by a consent decree on 10.5.1990. The consent decree was assailed on the ground that he was also the son of Roop Ram, therefore, he was entitled to inherit 1/4th share in the property and that his father Roop Ram had no right to transfer the ancestral property in favour of his other three brothers mentioned above. The respondents-defendants filed their written statement and stated that Ram Partap was given in adoption to one Chhotu Ram and, therefore, he has no right to inherit any property of his natural parents. Both the Courts below have held that the appellant was the adopted son of Chhotu Ram and that he is not entitled to inherit any property of Roop Ram. It was further held by both the Courts that the sons of Ram Partap-appellant have already inherited the estate of Chhotu Ram. 3. It is against the aforesaid two judgments of the Courts below that the present regular second appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the adoption of Ram Partap, father of the appellants, has not been proved in accordance with law. It has further been contended that the ceremony of giving and taking of Ram Partap in adoption has not been established. He has relied on the decision in Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai AIR 1983 SC 114 to contend that where the giving and taking of a person in adoption is not proved then that person cannot be said to have been properly adopted. He has relied on the decision in Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai AIR 1983 SC 114 to contend that where the giving and taking of a person in adoption is not proved then that person cannot be said to have been properly adopted. He has further challenged the consent decree dated 10.5.1990 on the ground that the suit property was ancestral in nature and, therefore, Roop Ram had no right to transfer this land in favour of his other three sons. 5. In reply. Shri ML. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, has contended that Ram Par-tap was given in adoption by his father Roop Ram to Chhotu Ram. Roop Ram had himself appeared in the witness box and had admitted that he had given Ram Partap in adoption to Chhotu Ram. It is further contended that the sons of Ram Partap have inherited the estate of Chhotu Ram which they would not have inherited unless Ram Partap was given in adoption to Chhotu Ram. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 7. The whole case revolves around the fact - Whether Ram Partap - father of the appellants, was given in adoption to Chhotu Ram and once having been given in adoption, whether he could succeed to the property as coparcener in his natural family? 8. The father of Ram Partap-Shri Roop Ram himself appeared in the witness box as DW3 and deposed on oath that his son Ram Partap was given in adoption to one Chhotu Ram and after his adoption Ram Partap lost all rights to succeed to the property of his natural family. Roop Ram DW3 being the natural father of Ram Partap has obviously no enmity with Ram Partap who was his son and therefore, there is no reason to deny him any share in his property unless he had been given in adoption. 9. In the present case, a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts clearly shows that the property left behind by Chhotu Ram was inherited by the sons of Ram Partap and therefore, it is clear that Ram Partap had been given in adoption to Chhotu Ram. 9. In the present case, a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts clearly shows that the property left behind by Chhotu Ram was inherited by the sons of Ram Partap and therefore, it is clear that Ram Partap had been given in adoption to Chhotu Ram. The question whether Ram Partap was given in adoption to Chhotu Ram has also been affirmed by the depositions of Jagdish Parshad DW4, Gordhan DW5, Balwant Singh DW6, Krishan DW7 and Hazari Lal DW9 who have supported the version of Roop Ram DW3. 10. It was also argued by the counsel for the appellant that the month, date and year as well as the place of adoption has not been stated by the defendants. Thus, it is presumed that no ceremony has taken place. 11. No doubt, the month, year and place had not been mentioned specifically in the written statement but after perusing the statements of DW3 to DW9, it is clear that the Ram Partap was given in adoption to Chhotu Ram and they resided together. 12. Admittedly Chhotu Ram had no son or issue and, therefore, he had adopted Ram Partap. This issue is further clear from the fact that Chhotu Ram executed a will in favour of the sons of Ram Partap and vide Ex.PX the entire immovable properties of Chhotu Ram were transferred in favour of the six sons of Ram Partap-plaintiff. If Ram Partap had not been adopted, there is no reason for Chhotu Ram to transfer his entire share to the sons of Ram Partap. 13. Once it has been held that Ram Partap was the adopted son of Chhotu Ram then obviously he does not have any share in the property of his natural father. Thus, the question whether the property was ancestral or was self-acquired of Roop Ram is of no importance because under no circumstances can Ram Partap inherit the property of either his natural ancestors or of Roop Ram. In any event, both the Courts have concurrently held that the suit property was partly self-acquired property of Roop Ram and Ram Partap has no right to any share therein. 14. No other point was urged. 15. As a result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.