BASDEO BHARDWAJ Vs. RAM SARUP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to appreciate the points arising in this regular second appeal, it is necessary to give an earlier history of litigation between parties. One Ramji Lal whose estate is the subject matter of this litigation died in 1925. His son Har Phul had pre -deceased him. On the death of Ramji Lal, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Basdev, appellant, on the ground that he was son of Har Phul, pre deceased son of Ramji Lal. Plaintiffs twenty fix in number who were eighth decree collaterals of Ramji Lal filed a suit for declaration that Basdev was not Ramji Lal's grandson and therefore, not entitled to the property left by him. They sought possession of the property. The suit was decreed and the Revenue Authorities consequently sanctioned mutation in the name of the plaintiffs Another litigation started in 1927. Kishan Devi, daughter of Ramji Lal, sued plaintiffs for possession on the ground that the property of Ramji Lal was non ancestral. Her suit was decreed on 11th of December, 1928. and the decree was maintained upto the High Court. Kishan Devi in pursuance of the decree entered into possession. Sometime later, Kishan Devi mortgaged this lard in favour of one Ganga Ram and he transferred his mortgagee rights in favour of Basdev, On 20th of July, 1937, Kishan Devi made a gift of her entire property in favour of Basdev. The mortgagee and the gift were challenged by the plaintiffs and their suit was decreed on 21st of December, 1940. It was held that Kishan Devi had only a life interest and after her death, the impugned gift and mortgage would not affect the plaintiffs reversionary rights.

(2.) THE next stage in the litigation is that Kishan Devi adopted Mukesh Kumar, son of Basdev, as a son to herself and a registered deed of adoption was executed on 11th of July, 1957 which is also the date of adoption. Kishan Devi died on 3rd January, 1960.

(3.) THE defence of Basdev in this suit is that the declaratory decree was not binding as the former suit which has resulted in the decree was not properly conducted by his guardian. He was then a minor. His second defence is that Kishan Devi was absolute owner of the property in suit in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Thirdly, it was contended that Kishan Devi had adopted Mukesh Kumar and no decree could be passed in favour of plaintiffs as they were no longer preferential heirs. Lastly, it was urged that Mukesh Kumar was a necessary party and in his absence, the suit could not proceed.