NANAK CHAND Vs. AMI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for possession was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed in appeal.

(2.) Smt. Bahali, who died in the year 1964, was owner of the suit land measuring 297 Kanals 19 Marlas. She took in adoption Nanak Chand defendant No. 1 vide adaption deed dated 11th December, 1956 (E.X.D.W. 7/1). By virtue of the said document, which is a composite document. She also transferred her property in favour of Nanak Chand by way of gift. Ami Lal and others filed the present suit on 14th October, 1969 challenging the factum of validity of the alleged adoption and the gift, and thus claimed their share in the suit property left behind by Smt. Bahali, Nanank Chand defendant contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that Smt. Bahali had adopted him as her son and that she transferred the land in dispute in his favour. He is the daughter's son of Smt. Bahali. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by time and that the plaintiffs were estopped from filing the suit. The trial Court found under issue No. 2, which was the most material issue, that Nanak Chand defendant could not be treated as adopted son of Smt Bahali and, therefore, he could not succeed to her as her adopted son. However, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed on the ground that there was a valid gift in favour of Nanak Chand and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit property. The trial Court also found that the suit was barred by time as it was filed after the period of more than 12 years from the date of the registration of the gift deed.

(3.) In appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that since Smt. Bahali remained in possession of the suit land till her death dispute the execution of the gift deed E.X.D.W. 7/1, it would follow that there was not valid gift in favour of Nanak Chand defendant. The learned lower appellate Court also found that suit was within time as the plaintiffs could not come to know of the said gift deed in the life time of Smt. Bahali. Consequently, the plaintiffs suit was decreed.