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
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
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
