NIRMAL SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following pedigree table shall be helpful in disposing of this Regular Second Appeal filed by

(2.) THE parties are collaterals in the same degree of Mihan Singh son of Ram Jas who died without leaving any nearer heirs like a widow or children etc. The appellant would normally have inherited a half share of the deceased 's property while Karnail Singh plaintiff respondent would have shared the other half with his real brothers thereby getting only a small fraction of that property. The normal course of devolution of this property had, however, been diverted by the adoption by Shri Mihan Singh of the plaintiff respondent and some gifts made by him in his life time. The appellant had disputed the factum and validity of the said adoption but both the Courts below have negatived that plea on the basis of the registered deed of adoption Exhibit P. 7 dated 25th May, 1942 and other evidence on record. The concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below on the point are not being challenged by the appellant in this Court. The plaintiff -respondent had on his part conceded in the lower appellate Court and then also before me that the trial Court had correctly found that the land left by Mihan Singh was not ancestral in his hands qua the parties .

(3.) THE mutation in respect of the four acres of land in dispute had been attested by the revenue authorities in favour of defendant -appellant on the basis of a registered gift deed Exhibit D. 1, dated 7th February, 1961. There is no dispute that this gift deed was executed by Mihan Singh deceased in the appellant's favour. About two months earlier, the deceased had made a similar gift of all his> other land having an area of more than six acres in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The simple question for decision in this case is whether the gift of four acres of land in appellant's favour evidenced by a registered deed amounts to a disinheritance of the plaintiff -respondent or a revocation or repudiation of the latter's adoption. The plaintiff -respondent had filed this suit for possession of the four acres of land in dispute on the ground that the gift in appellants favour was hit by the provisions of paragraph 51 of the Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law and was not binding on im.