PREET KUMAR Vs. SURJAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has approached this Court through the present regular second appeal. He had filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute claiming half share in the total land measuring 24 kanals 4 marlas. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that they were four brothers, namely, Achhar Ram, Surjan Dass, Girdhari and Arjan Dass. Plaintiffs Maharaj Kishan and Basheshar Nath were the sons of Arjan Dass. Bhagwanti and Krishan Piari were the children of Achhar Ram. The plaintiffs claimed that Surjan Dass defendant No. 1 was adopted by Chint Ram in the year 1916. The aforesaid Chint Ram was the father-in-law of Surjan Dass. Subsequently, Girdhari Lal died in the year 1964. He died intestate. The plaintiffs claimed that on the death of Girdhari Lal, they were entitled to succeed to the share of Girdhari Lal in equal shares with the children of Achhar Ram and Surjan Dass had no right or interest to claim the estate of Girdhari Lal inasmuch as he had been earlier adopted by Chint Ram and as such had been transplanted from the original family to the family of Chint Ram.

(2.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1. He denied the allegations contained in the plaint. He denied that he was ever adopted by Chint Ram. It was claimed that he was the son-in-law of Chint Ram. On that basis, it was claimed that being the brother of Girdhari Lal he was entitled to succeed to the estate of Girdhari Lal. An objection was also taken that Girdhari Lal having died in the year 1964 and the suit having been filed in the year 1975, the same was also barred by limitation.

(3.) THE matter was taken up in appeal by defendant No. 1. The learned first appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. On such re-appraisal, the learned first appellate Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Surjan Dass had ever been adopted by Chint Ram or that he had ever been so treated by Chint Ram. It was also held that Chint Ram was father-in-law of Surjan. On that basis, the learned first appellate Court observed that it could not be held that he had been adopted by Chint Ram. The various documents produced by the plaintiffs, namely, mortgage deeds and sale deeds wherein Surjan Dass was described as son of Chint Ram were also taken into consideration but the learned first appellate Court held that the said fact by itself was not sufficient to prove that there was any adoption by Chint Ram. Certain observations made by the learned first appellate Court may be noticed as follows :