SAKITTAR SINGH Vs. BALWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which falls for determination in this appeal,, which otherwise stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact is: Whether the document executed on 14th Jeth, 2011 Bk. by one Maluka in favour of Shiv Ram, whose legal representative the appellant claims to be, has the effect of a testamentary disposition of Malukas property in favour of Shiv Ram. Tills document was relied upon by Shiv Ram as a deed proving his adoption by Maluka in a suit for perpetual injunction brought against him by Malkas brother, Panjabi Ram restriaining him from collecting offerings at the holy shrine of Vaishna Devi as Malukas heir. The trial court decreed the suit holding that Shiv Ram had failed to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking and was not, therefore, the adopted son of Maluka. This finding was confirmed by District Judge, Udhampur, on first appeal, In the second appeal, however, the learned Single Judge allowed the appellant to amend his written statement by taking in it an additional plea that on its failure to prove adoption, the document created a testamentary disposition of Malukas property in favour of Shiv Ram, Interpretation of the document was the only point canvassed before the learned Single Judge who ultimately took the view that it was not a will but at the same time granted leave to the appellant to go in further appeal, as according to him, the contrary view was not wholly untenable. The document has been translated by the learned Single Judge in the following words:

(2.) ACCORDING to Hindu philosophy only a son can take out his deceased father from the hell and secure spiritual benefit to him and his ancesteres by offering oblations (Pindas) and water to propitiate deities. Having a son is considered to be a necessity by the Hindus not as much for secular considerations to secure an heir and perpetuate the adopter and his ancesters. In short, the main consideration of adoption is spirtual; develution of the property of the adopter being only of secondary importance. A Hindu not having a real son can adopt one and he adoption results in uprooting the adopted son from the family of his real father and transplanting him in the family of his adoptive father. For all intents and purposes, spiritual or temporal, an adopted son is a real son. In V. T. S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar and or?. Vs. Mulandaivelu Mudaliar and others, AIR 1963 S. C. 185, their Lordships after noticing a number of Privy Council judgments observed as under :

(3.) In the result the appeal fails, which is dismissed accordingly No costs.