BRIJ RAJ SARAN SINGH Vs. BASANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a suit filed in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Meerut in which the first five plaintiffs, Kumar Basant Singh and others, claimed to be the reversioners to the estate left by one Khushal Singh on his death in 1879, and as such to be entitled to possession of the estate on the death of his widow. The other plaintiffs are speculators who have purchased part of the plaintiffs claim. Khushal Singh left a widow, Rani Raghubir Kunwar, who succeeded to the estate on her husband's death, and in 1903 she adopted Brijraj Saran Singh, the principal defendant, who is the appellant in this appeal. Other appeals have been filed by various transferees of parts of the disputed property from Rani Raghubir Kunwar or from Brijraj Saran Singh or from both. The decision in the suit depended on the validity of the adoption of Brijraj Saran Singh by Rani Raghubir Kunwar in 1903.

(2.) The plaintiffs claimed that there had been no adoption, and that even if the ceremony of adoption had been gone through it was invalid, because Rani Raghubir Kunwar being a Hindu widow had no power to adopt without the express permission of her husband. They claimed that no such permission had ever been given, and in para. 9 of the plaint they definitely set up the theory that a will had been forged by one Rao Umrao Singh, the father of Rani Raghubir Kunwar and that in this so called will alleged to have been executed by Khushal Singh it was made to appear that Rani Raghubir Kunwar had been granted permission to adopt a son. They further claimed that the adoption was invalid because Brijraj Saran Singh, who was 19 years of age at the time of his adoption, was an orphan. The defendants alleged that the will was genuine and that the adoption was valid. It has not been suggested before us that the adoption would be valid under the Hindu Law, but it has been argued that under the customary law applying to the parties an orphan can be adopted, and further that a widow can adopt a son without the permission of the husband when the husband's property is non- ancestral. The defendants also claimed that the first five plaintiffs were not entitled to sue as the reversioners to the estate of Khushal Singh. The lower Court decided all these points, except that of the factum of adoption, in favour of the plaintiffs and gave them a decree.

(3.) It is necessary at the outset to give a brief history of the events that led up to this suit. Khushal Singh the last male owner of the estate, was the adopted son of Raja Naher Singh, Raja of Ballabhgarh, a dependant of the old Delhi Emperor. Ballabhgarh was then in the district of Delhi, which was part of the North Western Provinces. During the mutiny Raja Naher Singh rebelled against the Government; he was hanged, and his estate was forfeited, and his dependents were granted allowances on condition that they left their home. Khushal Singh migrated to Kuchesar, a large estate lying in the Bulandshahr and Meerut Districts and married a daughter of the last male owner of that estate, Gulab Singh. This daughter was named Bhup Kunwar, and on her death Khushal Singh managed to obtain possession of the whole Kuchesar estate, which was a large one. Litigation followed with some of the other claimants, and in 1868 there was a compromise under which a five anna share was carved out of the whole estate and was allotted to Khushal Singh. Of the other claimants Umrao Singh whose name figures to a certain extent in the present suit, got a six anna share, and one Partab Singh got the other five annas. Umrao's six anna share continued to be called the Kuchesar estate. Partab Singh's share was named the Mohi Uddinpur estate, and Khushal Singh's share, which is the property now in dispute, was called the Sahanpur estate. Some years before the compromise was arrived at, Bhup Kunwar had died, and very shortly after the compromise Khushal Singh married Rani Raghubir Kunwar, the daughter of Umrao Singh.