SARDUL SINGH Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first plaintiff is the appellant. He along with Manjit Kaur claiming to have been adopted by one Nidhan Singh and has wife Smt. Pritam Kaur, filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay the rent in respect of the suit house on the ground that they are owners in possession. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs were not adopted by Nidhan Singh and Nidhan Singh adopted Swaran Singh who is father of defendants 1 to 5 and, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to the suit property which admittedly belongs to Nidhan Singh. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, who vide impugned judgment dated 13.12.1997 dismissed the appeal. It may be mentioned that the second Plaintiff, namely, Manjit Kaur gave up her claim. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the first plaintiff Sardul Singh filed this appeal. According to the appellant, he was adopted by Nidhan Singh some time prior to the partition of the country when he was aged about two and a half year old and that Nidhan Singh died on 6.8.1963 and his wife Pritam Kaur died in October, 1981, and on the death of Pritam Kaur he inherited the property of Nidhan Singh and Pritam Kaur and thus became the owner of the suit property and, therefore, he filed the suit for the recovery of rent. It is, on the other hand, the case of the defendants 1 to 5, who are the sons of Swaran Singh that their father Swaran Singh was adopted by Nidhan Singh in 1941 and he denied that plaintiff has ever been adopted by Nidhan Singh. Thus, the only controversy in this case is whether the plaintiff-appellant is adopted son of Nidhan Singh or Swaran Singh, the father of defendants 1 to 5 was adopted by Nidhan Singh. Both the Courts below on a consideration of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Nidhan Singh adopted Swaran Singh father of defendants 1 to 5 and that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that he was adopted by Nidhan Singh and, therefore, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Sardul Singh was adopted son of Nidhan Singh. To prove the adoption, the plaintiff examined two witnesses, namely, PW.10 and PW.11. Both the Courts below did not place any reliance on their evidence. The plaintiff also relied upon two documents - one is a matriculation certificate which is marked Ex.PW/12/1 issued in the year 1959. In the said document it has been described Sardul Singh Azad son of Nidhan Singh. Both the Courts below did not place reliance on this document on the ground that neither Nidhan Singh nor the real father of Sardul Singh, namely Pal Singh used the siffix 'Azad' to their names. Therefore, it has not been proved that the said matriculation certificate issued in the year 1959 relied upon by the plaintiff relates to the appellant. This document also does not relate to the plaintiff has also been demonstrated by Ex.DW/15/1 produced by the defendants which is a school leaving certificate issued on 19th April, 1954. In the said certificate, the plaintiff was described as Sardul Singh son of Pal Singh. Thus, it is clear that even in the year 1954 the plaintiff has been described as son of Pal Singh but not as the son of Nidhan Singh. The other document on which the plaintiff places reliance is the character verification certificate when he was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Police Force. But none has been examined to prove this document. The person who made the verification of the antecedents of the plaintiff has not been examined to prove this document. Therefore no reliance can be placed on the same.