TULA RAM Vs. CHHAKNU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the present litigation are that one Moti Ram was owner -in -possession of the property, which is the subject matter of the suit. This Moti Ram died on 25.9.1982. Respondent Chhaknu is the widow, while Raghunath, Respondent No. 2, is the son of deceased Moti Ram. Tula Ram, the present Appellant, who was the Defendant in the main suit, claimed himself to be the adopted son of Shri Moti Ram. Mutation of inheritance, after the death of Moti Ram, was attested and sanctioned in favour of Plaintiff -Respondents and Defendant -Appellant in equal shares, vide mutation No. 480 of Mohal Tikrigarh and mutation No. 457 of Mohal Batrundi. The mutation in favour of Defendant -Appellant was sanctioned on account of his being the adopted son of deceased Moti Ram.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiffs, as pleaded, has been that the Defendant representing himself to be the adopted son of deceased Moti Ram got the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in his favour to the extent of l/3rd share in connivance with the revenue officials and his father -in -law, one Birbal, who happened to be the Lambardar of the Illaqa. Plaintiffs' further case had been that the Defendant himself procured, during the life time of Moti Ram, in the year 1978, some land as Nautor and got his family registered in the Parivar Register of the Panchayat separate from Moti Ram. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant had always represented himself to be the son of one Jhanda. Through the suit the Plaintiffs prayed that they alone were entitled to inherit the property of the deceased Moti Ram, being the widow and the son of the deceased and the mutation of inheritance attested and sanctioned in favour of the Defendant to the extent of l/3rd share was illegal and not binding on the rights of the parties.

(3.) The Defendant contested the suit. It has been his case, as pleaded in the written statement, that Moti Ram during his life time adopted him (Defendant), in accordance with the custom of the Illaqa, about 17 years back. The other averments pleaded in the written statement were pertaining to the facts that it was Moti Ram who educated and married the Defendant. The Defendant claimed that the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in his favour for l/3rd share of the estate of deceased Moti Ram was legally and correctly done.