AMAR SINGH Vs. BIKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case relates to the estate of one Hira Singh, Saini by caste, resident of Bhungarni, District Hoshiarpur. Amar Singh and others, the appellants and Bikar Singh respondent are fourth or fifth degree collaterals of Hira Singh. The parties are admittedly governed by custom. Hira Singh adopted Bikar Singh respondent as his son and also executed an adoption deed on 15th February, 1945. About two years thereafter Hira Singh executed another deed revoking the adoption. Bikar Singh brought a suit and got a decree in his favour declaring that the revocation was ineffective as against his rights as an adopted son. This decrees dated 13th February 1948, On 29th March, 1949, Hira Singh executed a, will bequeathing all that he owned and possessed to Amar Singh and others, defendants appellants. Hira Singh died in May, 1951, leaving 46 kanals and 17 marlas of agricultural land and a house. Bikar Singh then filed the present suit with the above allegations praying for a declaration that the will was invalid and ineffective and for possession of the property left by Hira Singh. The plaintiff further alleged that the property was ancestral and based the claim on his relationship as a collateral as well as an adopted son of Hira Singh. The factum as well as validity of the plaintiff's adoption and the latter's right to challenge the will were denied by the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. This further appeal is presented by the defendants.

(2.) The only point seriously urged by Mr. Roop Chand Chaudhri, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the plaintiff as an adopted son of Hira Singh could not challenge the will made by Hira Singh and therefore he had no locus standi to bring the suit. This was the subject-matter of issue No. 7. The Courts below have decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, their is somewhat defective. All that the learned Sub Judge says on the point is -

(3.) The learned District Judge confused the two positions of the plaintiff, one as a collateral of Hira Singh and the other as the latter's adopted son. He concludes the matter in the following terms :