RULIA Vs. TILAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an appellate decree of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated the 8th July 1948, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs and affirming the decree of the trial court.

(2.) THE relationship of the parties will be clear from the pedigree table which is as follows: uttam |------------------------------------------------------| | | | | narain Sultani Govind Bhola Wazir | | | | |-------------- Mst. Sangru Gurditta Buta ----------------| | (D. C) | (died) | | kanna Hira Beli Dayal Jhesi | | (Defdt. 2) | | | Harjallu | Nandu-------------------- ----------------------| | | | | sarno Rooldu Lachhman Sundar Ganga Pltiff. Pltff. Rulic Ptff.

(3.) ON the 23rd April 1946, by a registered deed of adoption, Beli defendant No. 2 adopted his daughter's son Tilak Chand. Beli possesses some occupancy land and sonic houses. On the 18th june 1947. a suit was brought by the collaterals, Rulia and others, challenging the adoption on the ground that the parties were governed by custom and daughter's son could not be adopted. The defence was that they were not governed by custom, that the land in dispute was not held by the common ancestor and that the adoption was under the Hindu Law as modified by custom. Both Courts have given concurrent findings that, (1) the land had not been proved to have been held by the common ancestor Uttam and there was no proof to show that the houses were ancestral property, (2) the adoption was a formal adoption in the Dattka form, (3) according to hindu Law, as modified in the Punjab, even among twice-born castes the adoption of a daughter's son is not prohibited, (4) the Brahmans of Gondpur were consulted at the time of settlement and preparation of the Riwaj-i-am and on the evidence which had been led it was clear that they were governed by custom in matters of succession and alienation and (5) by custom the adoption of a daughter's son was valid in this district.