Second appeal against dismissal of a declaration suit regarding inheritance. The High Court held that since the adoption deed date (1951) post-dated the deceased father's death, the succession had already opened, allowing both parties to inherit as heirs. Appeal dismissed.
Present appeal is dismissed.
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.
RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1413 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2009
Smt. Kamlesh and another
...........Appellants
Versus
Ran Singh and others
..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the Appellants.
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiff-Devi Ram filed a suit for declaration. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2003. The appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2008. Hence, the present appeal.
The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:-
“ 2.The brief facts of this case, relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal, are that Devi Ram appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff for brevity) instituted suit for seeking declaration against Ran Singh respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as defendant, for brevity) on the averments that he and
RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M)
2
defendant are sons of Data Ram son of Ruda Ram. Ruda Ram had two sons namely Data Ram and Kishan Lal. Ran Singh was taken on adoption by Kishan Lal and hence defendant had no right to the property of his natural father Data Ram. It was averred that 2/7 share of land measuring 115 Kanals 11 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94 as detailed in the head of the plaint, was to be mutated in the name of plaintiff Devi Ram only and it was wrongly sanctioned in favour of defendant. He further pleaded that defendant had no concern with the suit land and plaintiff is in possession of the same. He came to know regarding the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant in the year 1996 and hence he filed the present suit being the sole heir of the property of deceased Data Ram.
3
RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M)
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
9.Relief.”
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was the sole owner of the suit property left by deceased Data Ram as defendant had been adopted by Kishan Lal during the life time of Data Ram. Plaintiff,however, could not establish on record that defendant had been adopted by his uncle Kishan Lal during the life time of his father Data Ram. In case the defendant had been adopted during the life time of Data Ram then naturally
4
RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M)
plaintiff alone would be entitled to inherit the property left by Data Ram. However, in case defendant was adopted by Kishan Lal after the death of Data Ram then both the plaintiff and defendant would be entitled to inherit the property of Data Ram being his sons. Succession does not stand in abeyance and hence, on the death of Data Ram his succession qua his property opened. Admittedly, adoption deed was executed on 7.1.1951. The learned Additional District Judge has observed in the judgment that in Exhibit D1 adoption deed, it was mentioned that ceremonies essential for adoption had been performed a month prior to the execution of the deed. Mutation was entered by Halqa Patwari. Thereafter, the mutation was sanctioned on 20.3.1951. It has further been observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff himself had admitted that Data Ram had died somewhere in the end of year 1947 or in the beginning of year 1948. In these circumstances, the fact that defendant had been adopted by his uncle after death of Data Ram, lost its significance so far as inheritance qua the property of Data Ram is concerned. Both the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
( Sabina ) Judge
December 07, 2009
arya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendants had been adopted during the lifetime of the deceased father, with succession opening immediately upon death.
Whether the adoption occurring after the death of the deceased father affects the inheritance rights of the plaintiff.
Whether the present second appeal requires interference by this Court.
Smt. Kamlesh and another
Ran Singh and others
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
