DHARAM VIR SINGH Vs. ROOP RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari, dated 20.5.2000 and the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rewari, dated 22.12.2.000 by which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Ram Partap claimed that he is one of the sons of Roop Ram and that he has 1/4th share in the ancestral property. It was averred that the suit property was transfered by his father Roop Ram in favour of Matadeen, Ram Krishan and Hazari Lal who are also sons of Roop Ram by a consent decree on 10.5.1990. The consent decree was assailed on the ground that he was also the son of Roop Ram, therefore, he was entitled to inherit 1/4th share in the property and that his father Roop Ram had no right to transfer the ancestral property in favour of his other three brothers mentioned above. The respondent-defendants filed their written statements, that Ram Partap was given in adoption to one Chhotu Ram and, therefore, he has no right to inherit any property of his natural parents. Both the Courts below have held that the appellant was the adopted son of Chhotu Ram and that he is not entitled to inherit any property of Roop Ram. It was further held by both the Courts that the sons of Ram Partap-appellant have already inherited the estate of Chhotu Ram.

(3.) MR . Sehgal, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the adoption of Ram Partap, father of the appellants, has not been proved in accordance with law. It has further been contended that the ceremony of giving and taking of Ram Partap in adoption has not been established. He has relied on the decision in Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai, AIR 1993 SC 114 to contend that where the giving and taking of a person in adoption to not proved then that person cannot be said to have been properly adopted. It has further challenged the consent decree dated 10.5.1990 on the ground that the suit property was ancestral in nature and, therefore, Roop Ram had no right to transfer this land in favour of his other three sons.