GOPI Vs. MADANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed by plaintiff Shivchand against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Jodhpur dated October 21, 1965. Shivchand died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives are now on the record.

(2.) THERE has been much controversy about the subject matter of the suit and it is necessary to state the facts but before doing so it will be better to mention the genealogy (for genealogy see below) of the parties so as to bring out their relationship.

(3.) DEFENDANT Madanlal denied the claim altogether. He denied that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Maidas and pleaded that he himself ceased to be the son of Madhodas because of his adoption by Mansaram. He admitted however that Hathi Ram was their common ancestor and was the 'jagirdar' of Polawas, but denied Meghraj's adoption by Kaniram alias Gun -raj. It was admitted that Mansaram and Maidas were the two descendants of Gopi -nath and that Maidas died in the life time of Mansaram. It was alleged that Mansaram filed a suit for partition of the property against Maidas which was finally decided on June 29, 1904, and Mansaram was held entitled to a half share. The defendant denied that Mansaram entered into any compromise with. Maidas or presented it before any Court. In the alternative, it was pleaded that even if any such compromise was proved, it could not have any effect on Mansaram's descendants and came to an end on his death. At the same time, it was pleaded that after the death of Maidas, Mansaram became the owner of the entire property. It was denied that Mansaram became a lunatic at any time or remained in that state of mind until his death or that Fatehraj and Moolraj withdrew any money because of his lunacy. So also, it was denied that they had any influence on Mansaram, or that he was afraid of them. It was pleaded that Mansaram was able to think what was good or bad for him and that, on the other hand, any deed of adoption executed by Maidas's widow in favour of the plaintiff under undue influence was not legal and was void and invalid. It was pleaded that Mansaram executed the deed of adoption after taking the defendant in adoption of his own free -will and choice, but the Registrar did not register it and the defendant had to file a suit in the Court of Joint Kotwal No. 1 for its registration. A question arose whether it was necessary to appoint a guardian ad litem of Mansaram for purposes of that suit and Mr. Jukam -chand was appointed as the guardian until the decision of that question. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation and it could not have any adverse effect on the rights of the defendant. It was pleaded in paragraph 11 of the written statement that thereafter on August 10, 1944, Mansaram took the defendant in adoption and wrote the deed of adoption (Exhibit P.W. -10/1) in his own hand. It was presented for registration and was registered in spite of the objection of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that as he wanted to take his share in Gopinath's 'jagir' and other property as the adopted son of Mansaram, he filed a suit against the plaintiff in the Court of the Civil Judge, and that the plaintiff raised the present suit to bring undue pressure on him although all the points in controversy between the parties could well be decided in his own suit. It was, however, admitted that the 'mooris -i -ala' law was binding on the parties.