BABULAL Vs. DWARKABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal by the plaintiff Babulal arises out of a suit Bled by him in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Khandwa, for a declaration that he is the adopted son of the deceased Chunnilal and his wife, Smt. Rajkunwarbai. The plaintiff also claimed a permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 for restraining them from taking possession of the movable and immovable property mentioned in Schedules 'A' and 'B' annexed to the plaint. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner, Nimar, was impleaded as defendant No. 4 as representing the State. Now, in his place the Collector has been brought on record. An injunction was claimed against defendant No. 4 for preventing him from handing over the property seized on the death of Smt. Rajkunwarbai by the Station Officer of Mandhata to defendants 1 to 3. The Suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove his alleged adoption. This is the main issue for trial in this appeal filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) TO appreciate the case, it would be essential to mention a few facts. Chunnilal's first wife was one Smt. Gahanbai. At the time of her death, Chunnilal had three daughters through her, namely, Dwarkabai, Ghisibai and Parvatibai, who are defendants 1 to 3 on record. He had no male issue. He married Smt. Rajkunwarbai near about the year 1926. From Smt. Rajkunwarbai, he had no issue, male or female. It is alleged that Chunnilal in consultation with his wife, Smt. Rajkunwarbai, and Sidhnath, the natural father of the plaintiff Babulal, decided to adopt Babulal, who in the natural relationship was his brother Bondru's son's son. It is averred in the plaint that on 20-1-1934 which was the Basant Panchmi Day the plaintiff was adopted at village Sulgaon, where Chunnilal and Sidhnath resided. It is alleged that he was given in adoption by his father Sidhnath. The essential ceremony of giving and taking and the ceremony of Dutta homam, and other customary rituals were performed. It is further alleged that thereafter the plaintiff was brought up and educated by Chunnilal up to the time of his death and thereafter, by Smt. Rajkunwarbai. Chunnilal died on 13-11-1935. It is also pleaded that the thread ceremony and marriage of the plaintiff were performed by Smt. Rajkunwarbai at her expense and she provided the expenses when Babulal was receiving his education at a school at San wad. It is alleged in the plaint that eight or ten days before her death, Smt. Rajkunwarbai called the plaintiff to her bed-side from Indore where he was in the service of a Vaidya. It is alleged that the plaintiff performed the after death ceremonies of Rajkunwarbai who breathed her last on 25-8-1952. Shortly after the death of Smt. Rajkunwarbai, one Saraswatibai who was her sister, informed Mandhata police that none of Rajkunwarbai's heirs were in the village where she had died and it was likely that her property would be intermeddled by those persons who had no right to it. On this application, the Mandhata police seized the entire movable and immovable property which was left at the time of death of Rajkunwarbai under section 26 of the Police Act and deposited the movable property in the nazarat of the office of the Deputy Commissioner and gave the immovable property in possession of certain Supratdars.

(3.) IN the present appeal, as already stated, the main question for determination is whether the appellant was the adopted son of Chunnilal. If this question is answered for the appellant, then some other minor questions may be required to be considered but if his adoption is held not proved, the appeal must fail without any other question being required to be determined.