ANDHI KUER Vs. RAJESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs and the cross-objection is by defendant No. 1. Having heard the parties and considered the pros and cons of the matters, in my opinion, neither of them have any merit and consequently both have to be dismissed for the reasons which I am presently giving.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be relevant to give a short genealogy: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_325_AIR(PAT)_1972Html1.htm</FRM> Rajeshwar Singh, defendant No. 1, was adopted on the 25th July, 1949 by Mt. Barti Kuer, defendant No. 3, as a son to Dhanraj Singh, for which a deed of adoption duly registered was executed on the 24th February, 1950. It Is this adoption which has formed the subject-matter of the suit, the plaintiffs being Smt. Andhi Kuer and Smt. Shampati Kuer, the two daughters of Dhanraj Singh. The plaintiffs' case was that Mst Barti Kuer was a pardanashin and simpleton lady who had no capacity' to understand the transaction. Jagu Singh, the father of defendant No. 1 was a clever man and it was he who fraudulently and surreptitiously prevailed upon Mst. Barti Kuer and got a deed of adoption executed in favour of one of his sons. According to the plaintiffs Mst. Barti Kuer was not allowed to know the contents of the deed and yet she was made to execute it. The plaintiffs stated that they got knowledge about the execution of the said deed on the 25th of November, 1960 from Shri Harinandan Singh, Sarpanch of village Kurkuri, the village to which Mst. Barti Kuer, her husband and Rajeshwar Singh belong. In the plaint, as originally filed on the 16th December, 1960, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the deed of adoption dated the 24th February, 1950 was illegal, invalid, null and void and not binding npon the heritage of Dhanraj Singh or upon the plaintiffs and further, defendant No. 1 was not the adopted son of Dhanraj Singh. As stated earlier, Mst. Barti Kuer was made a party defendant to the suit as defendant second party. On the 23rd December, 1962, during the pendency of the suit, Mst. Barti died and thereafter the plaintiffs claimed a further relief, namely, that of being put in possession over the properties described in Schedule 1 of the plaint after dispossessing Rajeshwar Singh and his minor son who were defendants first party to the suit. There was another defendant, namely, the widow of the pre-deceased son of Dhanraj Singh, who was defendant third party to the suit. Defendant third party, however, neither appeared nor contested the suit I find that Mst. Barti Kuer, defendant No. 3 also did not file any written statement. Thus, it was a contest between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants first party on the other.

(3.) The defence was that since Dhanraf Singh had none to propagate his line of descent and to offer oblation after his death, he had decided to adopt defendant No. 1 as his son. He, however, could not do so due to his sudden death, but all the same he had authorised his widow, the said Mst. Barti Kuer to adopt defendant No. 1 as his son. In pursuance of the authority given by Dhanraj to his wife, Mst. Barti, the latter adopted defendant No. 1 on the 25th July, 1949, for which she executed and registered a deed of adoption dated the 24th February, 1950 and adopted the defendant after performing the due rites and ceremony in connection with the adoption. It was further stated that the allegation that it was Jagu Singh, the natural rather of defendant No. 1, who fraudulently prevailed upon Mst. Barti Kuer and got his son adopted without letting her know about the contents of the deed of adoption, was wrong and false. According to the defendant, the deed of adoption was executed by Mst Barti Kuer by her free will and volition and at her instance. The deed had been duly read over and explained and it was only after fully understanding the contents of it that she executed and registered it. Since the defendant No. 1 had acquired full right and tide as the son of Dhanraj Singh over his properties and had also come in possession of them during the lifetime of Barti Kuer and was continuing in possession, the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the adoption and to claim possession over the properties legally inherited by him.