KEWAL SINGH Vs. BAKHSHISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been brought from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated January 17, 1975. The short question for determination is whether Kewal Singh, appellant, was validly adopted by Udham Singh.

(2.) It does not appear to be necessary for the purpose of answering the above question to go into any minute factual details. In order to get a bird's eye view of the relevant circumstances in which the above mentioned question has arisen, it may, however, be stated that the appellant was adopted by Udham Singh, his father's brother. Udham Singh died in April, 1961 and then the appellant entered into possession of the property of the deceased. Bakhshish Singh (now respondent), Harnam Kaur and Gian Kaur, who were the brother and sisters of Udham Singh, respectively, being aggrieved by the act of the appellant, filed a suit for possession for their shares of the property left by Udham Singh. The appellant resisted the suit on the ground that he had been adopted by Udham Singh as a son and this adoption was finally confirmed by a registered adoption deed dated July 28, 1960. A number of issues were raised in the trial Court, but ultimately before the appellate Court the decision only rested on the question whether Kewal Singh had been validly adopted as a son by Udham Singh or not. The trial Court found that the appellant had been validly adopted and this finding was upheld by the appellate Court. On second appeal filed by Bakhshish Singh (now respondent), M.S. Gujral, J. (as his Lordship then was) reversed the findings of both the Courts below on Issue No. 2 and held that there was no valid adoption of the appellant, as the mother had not given away the child in adoption, as provided under clause (vi) of Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act).

(3.) In the regular second appeal before the learned Single Judge, two specific contentions were raised. (i) The expression "child" occurring in clause (vi) of Section 11 of the Act, meant persons below 15 years of age and this clause did not apply to persons above that age and who were not minors; and (ii) the mother had consented to the transfer of the child from the family of his birth to the family of his adoption and as such it should be implied that she had given the child in adoption.