SURAJ MAL Vs. KESHAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant has miserably failed to prove that he was ever adopted by Smt. Keshar Devi defendant-respondent No. 1. It is the estate of defendant- respondent No. 1, which is being claimed by the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of adoption. There is no document brought on record to prove the adoption nor there is any collateral evidence proving the fact of adoption of the plaintiff-appellant by Smt. Keshar Devi defendant-respondent No. 1. When she herself appeared in the witness box as DW-1, she categorically denied having adopted the plaintiff-appellant. Reliance has also been placed on an earlier suit filed by Diwan Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant titled as Diwan Singh v. Smt. Santosh, where it has been asserted that he alongwith Sher Singh were the owners in possession of the suit land. Had Diwan Singh given Suraj Mal in adoption to Smt. Keshar Devi, then she would not have asserted her right as well as right of her brother upon the suit land.

(2.) BRIEF facts, which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal, can be understood with the help of a pedigree table and the same is as under :- See Table

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have found concurrently that there is no evidence of adoption. The view of the learned lower Appellate Court with regard to the nature of evidence led by the plaintiff-appellant to prove adoption, reads as under :- "No cogent evidence has been led to prove the factum of adoption of plaintiff by defendant Keshar Devi. The oral evidence led by the plaintiff, which is otherwise in a perfunctory manner, cannot be believed without there being any documentary proof. No adoption deed has been placed on the file. None of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff has either given the date, month and year of adoption or the date, month and year when the plaintiff acquired the land by way of family settlement. PW-1 Sarbati is the mother of the plaintiff and PW-2 Krishana is the wife of the plaintiff. Their evidence cannot be believed being interested persons. The evidence of PW-3 Ajmer Singh, who is also distantly related to the plaintiff, is also cannot be believed. He has not stated even a single word about the acquiring of the land of Keshar Devi by the plaintiff. He, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that he does not remember the name of the son of Diwan Singh, who was given in adoption. Even, in his cross-examination, he stated that he has not met Keshar for the last about 15 years. On the other hand, Keshar Devi while appearing in the witness box as DW-1 has specifically stated that she does not know Surajmal nor she ever taken him in adoption. She also stated that she has transferred her land in favour of Santosh with her free will. Her version is corroborated by DW-2 Santosh and DW-5 Sheo Lal, who is an independent witness and ex-Sarpanch of the village. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence led by the defendants. There is one more aspect of the case which falsifies the stand of the plaintiff."