PADAM BAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the appellate judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 3 -A/81 dated 11.12.80 by the A.D.J. to the District Judge, Dewas who was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the appellants confirming the judgment rendered by Civil Judge, Class -II, Sonkatch in Civil Suit No. 92/79 -A. The plaintiff has filed a suit saying that the husband of plaintiff No. 1 Thakatsingh died in Samvat 2008 had no issues, therefore, on 8.4.1968 she adopted plaintiff No. 2 as son. His father Bhaversingh gave plaintiff No. 2 in adoption to plaintiff No. 1. Some disputes arose between the plaintiff No. 1 and the father of plaintiff No. 2, therefore, the plaintiff No. 1 decided not to give any property to plaintiff No. 2. Near about the date of notification under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") was published, the suit land was considered for deciding as to ceiling. A case No. 1180/74 -75 was initiated by the defendants. The plaintiffs filed their return in a hurry.

(2.) THE plaintiff No. 2 filed a suit on 14.11.1975 for a declaration against plaintiff No. 1 as suit No. 159/75A in the civil Court and within six days on 20.11.1975 a compromise decree was obtained. On 17.10.1975 she represented before the competent authority that the family of the plaintiff No. 1 consisted of two members and not one therefore, there is no land in surplus under the Act. The competent authority rejected the plaintiffs application on 29.1.1976 and declared the suit land to be surplus. The present suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to retain 51.86 acres of land as a family of two persons. The respondents filed their say and contended that really the plaintiff No. 2 is not the adopted son of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 alone is the holder of whole 51.86 acres of land and being the sole member of her family she could not retain more than 30 acres of land under the Act. The decree between plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 in civil suit No. 159/75A is collusive decree and the surplus land is rightly declared. The learned Civil Judge on pleadings raised two issues whether the plaintiff No. 2 is the adopted son of plaintiff No. 1 and what is the effect of return filed by the plaintiff No. 1 before the competent authority. The trial Court held against the plaintiff that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff No. 2 is legally taken in adoption. It was also held that the plaintiff No. 1 had filed in return before the competent authority under misconception, therefore, dismissed the suit. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conclusion of the trial Court. This second appeal has been admitted on the following two questions as substantial questions of law :

(3.) IN the view of the matter the substantial questions raised at the time of admission of this appeal do not arise in this appeal, therefore, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with costs. The advocate's fee as may be proved.