LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-249

SAHIB SINGH Vs. ARVINDER KAUR

Decided On January 24, 2013
SAHIB SINGH Appellant
V/S
ARVINDER KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit, being CS (OS) No. 2622/2008, for partition, mandatory injunction, declaration and rendition of accounts against the respondents. The appellant claimed that he was the son of late Sardar Amarjeet Singh. Respondent No. 1 is his natural mother, while respondent No. 2 is his brother and respondent No. 3 the sister. Late Amarjeet Singh is stated to have passed away on 23.03.2007 intestate leaving behind movable and immovable properties in which the appellant had undivided interest. The amounts being realized from the properties are stated to have been personally appropriated by respondents No. 2 to 4.

(2.) Respondent No. 5, namely, Sardar Jagbir Singh, is the real brother of late Amarjeet Singh. He is stated to have had no issue from his wedlock which resulted in a mutual understanding / settlement between late Amarjeet Singh and him that late Amarjeet Singh would give the custody of his child to his brother / respondent No. 5, who shall look after him and in case a child is born from the wedlock of Sd. Jagbir Singh and his wife within 7 years, then the custody of the child (appellant herein) would revert back to late Amarjeet Singh for all intents and purposes. An Adoption Deed / Settlement dated 01.12.1984 is stated to have been executed between the parties. Sd. Jagbir Singh was blessed with the child on 04.04.1990 and, thus, the custody of the appellant is stated to have reverted back to late Amarjeet Singh and a document called "Cancellation of Adoption Deed Dated 01.12.1984" was also executed between the parties on 11.08.1991. It is in view thereof that the appellant claims that he has all right, title and interest in the estate of late Amarjeet Singh.

(3.) Insofar as respondent No. 4 is concerned, the allegation is that he was brought up by respondent No. 1 (his mother) alleging him to be her brother, but later transpired that respondent No. 4 was actually her son from a marriage with one Sd. Jagbir Singh Walia. This, in fact, resulted in late Amarjeet Singh, during his lifetime, instituting a petition for declaration of his marriage null and void on the ground that his spouse had a subsisting earlier marriage, but that issue was resolved between respondent No. 1 and late Amarjeet Singh. Respondent No. 4 is alleged to have never been adopted by late Amarjeet Singh and, thus, it is pleaded that he had no right, title or interest in the suit properties.