LAWS(PVC)-1923-4-230

BISWA NATH SINGH Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

Decided On April 17, 1923
BISWA NATH SINGH Appellant
V/S
JUGAL KISHORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Bishwanath Singh, the surviving plaintiff, against a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur and dismissed the suit. The suit is for the possession of a two-thirds share of the village Pakauri in the District of Sitapur.

(2.) THE other plaintiff in the suit was Musammat Gulab Kuar, who is now dead. She was the widow of Bakleo Bakhsh Singh, who died sonless in or about 1S91. He was a Hindu and by caste a Raghubansi, and lived in the village of Bamhnawan in the District of Sitapur and owned the village of Pakauri. The widow adopted on the 17th October 1915 the appellant as a son to her deceased husband, who had given her no authority to adopt a sou to him. The question which their lordships have had to consider in this appeal is whether that adoption was valid, and apparently that was the only question as to which there was a contention in the Appellate Court. The learned Judges of the Appellate Court, in their judgment, said: There are thus two points for decision in this appeal, namely, whether Musammat Gulab Kuar had authority from her husband to adopt, and, secondly, whether failing such authority she had a right of (by) custom to adopt without authority from her husband.

(3.) THE evidence that there was such a custom in this family consisted of statements as to the right of widows to adopt sons to their deceased husbands contained in the wajib-ul-araiz of eight villages which had been recorded in the Settlement of 1871, that is about forty-four years before the adoption in question here. One of those villages was the village of Bamhanawan, in which Baldeo Bakhsh Singh had lived; at least two other of the villages were villages in which he or members of his family were interested as proprietors; and the remaining four villages were villages in which members of his caste had been interested, although their relationship to his family was not proved. There was also some oral evidence of witnesses in support of the custom.