In this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, the appellant claimed share in ancestral property as an adopted son, arguing a Will cannot debar an adopted son. The court held that since adoption was not proved and the Will was not disputed, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal failed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1155 of 2019
Appellant :- Pappu Alias Ramesh Chandra Bhardwaj Respondent :- Krishna Devi Sharma And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi,Vivek Saran Counsel for Respondent :- Asim Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2018 arising out of judgment and order dated 10.08.2018 passed in Original Suit No. 512 of 2011.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that he is adopted son of Sri Ram Babu Sharma. Sri Ram Babu Sharma has left a Will and not bequeathed any share of property in his favour. Sri Ram Babu Sharma through a Will has bequeathed all his share in favour of his daughters. He being adopted son of Sri Ram Babu Sharma could not have been deprived of such share in property of Sri Ram Babu Sharma inasmuch as an adopted son has some rights and liabilities in the estate of adopting parent as that of a natural son/daughter.
In view of such submissions, it is submitted that impugned judgments/orders suffers from infirmity and having failed to take into consideration all these aspects, the appeal deserves to be admitted as their exists a substantial question of law as to whether an adopted son can be debarred from the estate of an adopting father by writing a Will in favour of third party.
Sri Asim Kumar Singh in its turn submits that factum of adoption has not been proved and therefore, no substantial question of law appears to arise in this second appeal.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, two things emerge namely what Sri Asim Kumar Singh has pointed out that plaintiff could not prove his adoption. Secondly, though hypothetical in the matter but since this issue has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant that a person leaving a Will can always debar his natural or
adopted son from the fruits of his estate and therefore, that cannot be a ground or substantial question of law that if a person is dying leaving a valid Will behind then, whether a particular class of persons can be deprived of the estate or not.
In view of such facts that Will has not been disputed, adoption could not be proved, there is no iota of doubt in the findings of the courts below which are concurrent in nature, does not call for any interference.
Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.12.2019 Vikram/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a person leaving a valid Will can deprive an adopted son of their share in the estate.
Whether the non-apeal of facts regarding adoption justifies interference in the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Pappu Alias Ramesh Chandra Bhardwaj
Krishna Devi Sharma And 4 Others
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
