SURINDER KAUR Vs. SATYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. It has been concurrently found that the plaintiff-appellant was never adopted by Atma Ram deceased and therefore, he is not entitled to inherit the house left by Atma Ram deceased. The findings of the Civil Judge on issue No. 1 as to whether the plaintiff- appellant was entitled to the possession of the house and as to whether he was the owner of the house were not even challenged before the lower Appellate Court. In other words, the plaintiff-appellant accepted the findings of the Civil Judge as prayed on issues No. 1 & 2. In para 11 of the judgment the Civil Judge has concluded that the plaintiff-appellant is not the owner of the suit property nor he is entitled to be granted the relief of possession.

(2.) THE challenge before the learned District Judge, Ambala was regarding issue No. 6 alone which was to the effect as to whether Mohinder Singh was entitled to retain the possession of the house of Atma Ram deceased. The learned District Judge referred to the pleadings and evidence of the parties and then affirmed the findings on issue No. 6. The views of the learned District Judge read as under :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered view that this appeal is bereft of any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed because the suit of the plaintiff could succeed only if there was sufficient evidence fulfilling the legal requirements of a valid option (adoption ?). Under Sections 6 and 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 various requirements have been laid down for a valid adoption of a child. The aforementioned provisions are reproduced below for facility of reference :