RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the instant appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 6.12.90 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 36/77, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff seeking possession of the suit property from the appellant-defendant.

(2.) THE case of the respondent-plaintiff before the trial court was interalia that late Shri Durga Prasad had two sons, named Shri Devkinandan and Shri Ghasi Lal and one daughter named Narayani Devi. The plaintiff was the daughter of the said Narayani Devi. The said Devkinandan and Ghasi Lal died issueless in the year 1974 and 1934 respectively. One Shri Gaindi Lal and Shri Motilal were the owners of the suit, being three storied house, bearing Municipal No. 1368 situated at Gangapole, Jaipur Chowkri (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). The said owners gifted the said property to the said Shri Devkinandan and Ghasi Lal by executing a registered gift deed dated 18.11.32. It was further case of the plaintiff that her parents died at a very young age and she was brought up by her maternal uncle Devkinandan. The said Devkinandan therefore, had executed a Will dated 9.11.74 bequeathing the said property to the plaintiff and he died on 6.12.74. According to the plaintiff since the said Devkinandan did not have any son, his obsequies ceremonies were performed by the defendant, being a distant male relative, and the defendant therefore stayed in the suit property for some days after the death of Shri Devkinandan. The plaintiff subsequently came to know that the defendant was trying to take possession of the moveable properties and he also tried to open the locker of Devkinandan and that he was also trying to occupy the suit property illegally. According to the plaintiff, she being the sole survivor and being the beneficiary of the Will executed by the said Devkinandan in her favour, was the owner of the suit property. When the defendant refused to vacate the suit property and handover the possession of the same to the plaintiff, the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE undisputed facts in the instant case are that the respondent was the sole surviving member in the family of Durga Prasad and was brought up by her maternal uncle Devkinandan, her parents having died at a very young age. It is also not disputed that the two sons of Durga Prasad named Devkinandan and Ghasi Lal died issueless. It is also not disputed that the suit property was gifted to the said Devkinandan and Ghasi Lal by Shri Gaindi Lal and Moti Lal (original owners) by executing registered gift deed on 18.11.32 and thus the suit property was not the ancestral property in the hands of Devkinandan. It is also not disputed that the appellant was not the near relative but was the distant relative of the said Devkinandan. The real questions therefore which are under consideration before this court are - whether the appellant was taken in adoption by the said Devkinandan on 2.5.55 as per the Hindu Law, and whether the said Devkinandan had executed the Will dated 9.11.74 bequeathing the suit property to the respondent?