Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rulli Ram vs Krishan And Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050186
RSA No.258 of 1994 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:050186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.258 of 1994 (O&M)
Date of Order:15.04.2024
Rulli Ram
.Appellant
Versus
Krishan and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the applicant-appellant Mr. B.S.Beniwal, Advocate for respondent no.1, 2, 5 to 7.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J C.M.No.2262-C-2024
1. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, taken on Board for final disposal. MAIN
2. This is the defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court which in turn has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
3. On the death of Sh. Puran, the revenue authorities sanctioned the mutation in favour of his Class-I heir including Sh. Rulli Ram, the appellant. The plaintiffs claim that Sh. Rulli Ram was adopted by Sh. Nanu, who was brother of Sh. Puran. Hence, he has no right to inherit the property from Sh. Puran. Sh. Rulli Ram by filing the written statement denied adoption.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2024 20:31:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050186 RSA No.258 of 1994 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:050186
4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that Sh. Rulli Ram was more than 15 years on the date the adoption took place, hence, it was not legal.
5. The First Appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence held that Sh. Rulli Ram along with various other persons filed a previous suit on 04.01.1986, claiming to be adopted son of Sh. Nanu which was decreed on 28.02.1986. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was reversed.
6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along with requisitioned record.
7. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the alleged adoption is after coming into force of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which prohibits adoption of a child more than 15 years on the date of adoption. He further submits that there is no written document of adoption and the ceremonies of adoption have not been proved by the plaintiffs.
8. On a court question, the learned counsel representing the appellant admits that in Civil Suit no.9 of 04.01.1986, Sh. Rulli Ram claimed that he is adopted son of Sh. Nanu. In this case, no definite date of adoption has come on record.
9. Moreover, if the custom permits, the adoption of a child of more than 15 years is permissible. In this case, the defendant (appellant) has himself filed a previous suit claiming to be adopted son. Hence, he is estopped from disputing the various position.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2024 20:31:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050186 RSA No.258 of 1994 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:050186 to interfere is made out.
11. Dismissed.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
April 15, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2024 20:31:45 :::