SARJO BAI Vs. HARIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Law is not settled, counsel submits. Different High Courts have expressed divergent opinions on the question mooted for decision in this appeal, it is seriously contended by Shri Arun Mishra, who appears for the plaintiff appellant. In my view the instant lis has a peculiar complexion : the law applicable is not uncertain, but has to be identified still.

(2.) Indeed when this matter came up before me earlier and it could not be heard for the defendant-respondent being unrepresented by counsel, I directed S.P.C. to issue to him to ensure that he does not suffer in absentia. Unfortunately, despite S.P.C. I am assisted today in this matter by appellant's counsel only. Accordingly, it has become necessary for me to examine the matter more carefully lest the unrepresented respondent suffers.

(3.) A short question has come up for decision in this appeal - Whether the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to claim in the joint agricultural holding not only her deceased husband's interest but also the interest of her husband's brother, Hariram for the only reason that Hariram was taken in adoption 2 Indeed, what is undisputed is that Hariram's brother Bindraban, Sarjo Bai's husband, died in 1949 and that the adoption of Hariram took place on 20-12-1955. It is also not in dispute that the two brothers, Bindraban and Hariram, survived their father Pershadi, who predeceased them.