DHARAM KUNWAR Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The title to the Landhaura estate, an extensive and valuable estate situate in the district of Saharanpur and other districts, is involved in this appeal. The plaintiff, who is the widow of the late Raja Raghubir Singh, seeks for a declaration that she had no power to adopt the defendant Balwant Singh, and that she in fact never adopted him, and that a document which is called a deed of adoption, dated the 13 of January 1899, might be declared to be void.

(2.) Raja Raghubir Singh died on the 23 of April 1868 at the age of about 20 years. After his death his widow, the plaintiff, Rani Dharam Kunwar, gave birth to a son on the 16 of December 1868, who was named Jagat Parkash Singh. This eon died on the 31 of August 1870, and on the 4 of March 1877, the plaintiff adopted a boy Tofa Singh, who was afterwards renamed Raja Narendra Singh. This adopted boy died about 2 1/2 years after his adoption, and on the 20 of January 1883 the plaintiff adopted another boy named Earn Sarup, who was renamed Ram Padab Singh. In June 1885 Earn Padab Singh died, and a few years afterwards the plaintiff took a boy named Umrao Singh to live with her with a view to his adoption. This boy also died before adoption in May 1896. Then on the 2nd of June 1898 she determined to adopt another son, and amongst others two sons of Ram Newaz, namely, the defendant Balwant Singh and his brother Tungal Singh were brought to her for approval, and these two boys were permitted to live with her for some time. Ram Newaz is a man in humble circumstances owning only a small zamindari on which Rs. 50 per annum is paid for revenue. The defendant Balwant Singh was selected, and on the 13 of January 1899, the ceremony of his adoption is alleged to have been performed with all due formalities, and an agreement was executed by Ram Newaz as also by the plaintiff. It is this adoption which the plaintiff geeks to have declared invalid, her case being that she had no authority from her husband to adopt the defendant and that the adoption in fact never took place.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge found that the factum of the adoption was proved and that the plaintiff having adopted the defendant is estopped from alleging that she had no authority to make the adoption and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. From this decision the present appeal has been preferred.