DATA RAM Vs. TEJA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to appreciate the dispute between the parties a reference to the following pedigreetable would be useful. There seems to be a mistake inthe pedigree -table set out in the judgment of the trial Court. It is admitted before me by the counsel for the parties that the correct pedigree -table would be as follows: KANWAR ____________|_____________ | | Shibu Hira __________|__________ | | Jaswant Data Ram | Sunder Singh=Mst. Dakhan (Widow) | Girja Singh (brother of Mst. Dakhan). On 28th September 1948 Data Ram adopted Girja Singh, who admittedly was not a kinsman of Data Ram. On 28th September 1950 Mst. Dakhan and Data Ram gifted the land in dispute to Girja Singh. The plaintiffs claiming to be the collaterals of Data Ram and Sunder Singh filed this suit on 4th October 1950 for a declaration that the adoption dated 28th September 1948 was invalid according to custom and that the same be set aside. On 11th December 1950 the plaintiffs filed another suit for a declaration that the gift by Data Ram and Mst. Dakhan in favour of Girja Singh was ineffective and not binding on their reversionary rights. Both the suits were consolidated and were disposed of together.

(2.) AS regards adoption, the trial Court found that it had been proved to have taken place but that the adoption was invalid. As the property was not found to be ancestral, it was held that the gift was nothing but an acceleration of succession and that both the suits were barred by time. Consequently the suits were dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge in appeal held that part of the property was ancestral and part of it was non -ancestral. In the suit relating to adoption he gave a finding that the suit was not barred by time. As regards the adoption or a stranger it was held that according to the riwaj -i -am of Jagadhri Tehsil compiled in the settlement of 1919 -20, an adopted son should be amongst the relatives and even amongst relatives the brother's son, grandson and great grandson were to be given preference, and if no collateral was living then any one from the same got could be adopted. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Girja Singh being a stranger could not have been validly adopted in the presence of nearer relations. He, therefore, granted a declaration to the effect that the adoption of Girja Singh by Data Ram was invalid. As regards gift, a decree was granted with regard to the khasra numbers which had been found to be ancestral and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with regard to the land which had been found to be non -ancestral. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court, and both the appeals (R. S. As. Nos. 679 and 591 of 1953} will be disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) THE other point that has been raised by Mr. Ganga Parshad relates to the question of limitation. It has been urged that the view of the trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation was correct and that the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in holding that the suit was within time. The question of limitation in the present case depends entirely on appreciation of evidence with regard to the point of time when Girja Singh was adopted. The finding given by the learned Additional District Judge is based on evidence and no error of law has been shown to me. It must, therefore, be held that the suit was within time,