TARA SINGH Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration has been decreed by both the courts below.

(2.) Hazara Singh was the owner of the suit land measuring 12 Kanals 6 Marlas. Balbir Singh son of Joginder Singh was allegedly adopted as a son by the said Hazara Singh. After his death, Balbir Singh inherited his estate as his adopted son and sold the land, in dispute, to plaintiff Jasbir Singh and Balbir Singh, defendant No. 9, by means of the sale deed dated February 20, 1974. When the plaintiff and defendant No. 9 wanted to install a tubewell therein, defendants Nos. 1 to 8 obstructed them from installing the tubewell. Jasbir Singh, plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he and defendant No. 9 be declared to be the owners in possession of the suit land and by way of consequential relief the defendants be restrained from obstructing them from installing the tubewell in the suit land and by way of consequential relief the defendants be restrained from obstructing them from installing the tubewell in the suit land. It was also pleaded that defendants Nos. 1 to 8 had no right to obstruct them from installing the tubewell. The suit was contested inter alia on the plea that Balbir Singh son of Joginder Singh was never adopted as son by Hazara Singh. The adoption deed, if any, was not legal and valid. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land as such and that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. A plea was also raised that at the time the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Balbir Singh, a suit filed by them challenging the adoption of Balbir Singh was pending in the Court and, therefore, the principle of lis pendens was attracted. After framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court found that Balbir Singh was validly adopted son of Hazara Singh and was, thus, the owner of the suit property after the death of Hazara Singh. He validly executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 9. As regards the suit challenging the adoption, the finding of the trial Court was that the same was dismissed for default and, therefore, was of no consequence. In view of these findings, the plaintiff's suit was decreed on February 10, 1977. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) According to the appellant, there was no valid adoption of Balbir Singh by Hazara Singh, deceased, and, therefore, any sale deed executed by him was of no consequence. According to the appellant, the evidence on the record has not been property appreciated; hence the findings are vitiated. Moreover, the suit challenging the adoption is still pending.