LUNKURN RAMPOORIA Vs. BIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit concerns the estate of one Choutmull, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara school, who died in 1918. It appears that he had three brothers one Bridhichand who does not matter for the present purpose and two others called Ganeshdas and Choonilal. Choutmull had a son Hamirmull who was married to Mt. Birji, defendant 1 in the present suit. Hamirmull died in 1900. in the lifetime of his father and it appears that, in 1906, his widow Mt. Birji adopted or purported to adopt to him one Punamchand who is a defendant in the present suit. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the Bikaner Durbar confirmed this adoption in October 1906. In March 1912 Punamchand and his four sons who are the plaintiffs in the present suit brought a suit (No. 315 of 1912) against Choutmull, Hazarimull, son of Choutmull's brother Choonilal and Thanmull, son of adopted son of Ganeshdas. At that time, all the present plaintiffs were under age and Punamchand brought the suit on his own behalf and also on behalf of his sons as their next friend. The purport of that suit was to allege that there was a certain joint family business in Calcutta which had been established out of the joint estate and out of funds belonging to the joint family of which Choutmull was a member. It was said that Punamchand and his sons by reason of Punamchand's adoption to Hamirmull in 1906 were interested in that joint family business. A declaration was asked that the plaintiffs between them were entitled to a 5/18ths share and reliefs were sought by way of partition and otherwise. The suit having been filed in March 1912, Choutmull filed his written statement in September of that year. He did not dispute that there was some ceremony or transaction purporting to be an adoption of Punamchand in 1906 but he denied the validity of the adoption inter alia on the ground that in 1906 Punamchand was about 24 years old and had two sons the present plaintiffs 1 and 2 at the time of the alleged adoption. Prom the plaint in the present suit it appears clear that, in 1906, the first two of the present plaintiffs had been born. Choutmull in addition set up a document purporting to govern the adoption of Punamchand according to. which Mt. Birji reserved right to herself to allow or disallow the adoption at any later time and to pay to Punamchand a one-third share of a certain interest in this business as a term of his getting no other interest by reason of the adoption. Choutmull alleged that the business referred to in that plaint was a mere contractual partnership and his interest therein was a mere self-acquisition. He set up a custom to cancel the adoption and he also said that, in that very year 1912, Punamchand had purported to cancel his adoption and that this cancellation had been confirmed by the Bikaner Durbar. That the Bikaner Durbar did purport to confirm the cancellation of the adoption appears from the terms of settlement to which I shall shortly refer.

(2.) Now, the previous suit No. 315 of 1912 ended in a consent decree. The Court certified that the compromise was for the benefit of the infants and the terms upon which that suit was compromised have been put in. By Clause 1, Punamchand accepts the cancellation of his adoption by Mt. Birji and agrees not to contest the order of the Bikaner Raj cancelling the adoption. By CI. 3, Punamchand on behalf of himself and his minor sons accepts the statement of Choutmull that he did not inherit any ancestral fund or property whatsoever and that all his property is self-acquired property. The clause goes on to say: and the plaintiffs never acquired nor have now any right, title or interest in and to the estate and effects of the said Choutmull or of his adopted son Hamir and Hazarimull or of the said Mt. Birji.

(3.) By Clause 4, Choutmull was to pay to Punamchand on behalf of himself and his minor sons Rs. 1,90,000: in full satisfaction of the claims of all the plaintiffs, if any whatsoever, which the said Punamchand or his sons may now have or may hereafter have by reason, of the adoption of the plaintiff Punamchand by Mt. Birji.