Narain Singh and others vs Viru and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is plaintiffs'' appeal whose suit for possession of the agricultural land has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

Mohan Singh alias Mona was the owner of the suit land, measuring 124 kanals 19 marlas, fully described in the plaint. He gifted this land, alongwith a pucka house, in favour of Viru, defendant No. 1, vide gift deed dated 16th February, 1957. This gift deed was challenged by way of civil suit and the same was decreed on 20th August, 1960, declaring that the gift shall not effect the reversionery rights of Mohan Singh. The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the nearest heirs of Mohan Singh (deceased) filed the present suit for possession of the property left behind by him. The suit was contested on the plea that the plaintiffs were not the only surviving heirs of Mohan Singh (deceased). It was pleaded that the defendant No. 2 Gulzar Singh was the adopted son of Mohan Singh (deceased) and as such, he was entitled to succeed to his estate and that the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the suit property.

Thus, the main controversy between the parties was, whether Gulzar Singh defendant No. 2 was the validly adopted son of Mohan Singh (deceased) or not ?

On the basis of the registered adoption deed Ex. D-1 dated 6th November 1968, both the Courts below have concurrently found that Gulzar Singh defendant No. 2 was the validly adopted son of Mohan Singh (deceased) and have thus, dismissed the plaintiffs'' suit. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal in this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no evidence on the record about the ceremony of giving and taking, which, according to the learned counsel, was a condition precedent for a valid adoption. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in the absence of any such evidence, it could not be held that the adoption of Gulzar Singh defendant No. 2 by Mohan Singh (deceased) was a valid one.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 1956 provides that whenever any document registered under any law, for the time being in force, is produced before any Court purporting to record, an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. Admittedly, registered document Ex-D-1 purports to record the adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption. Thus, it was for the plaintiff''s to disprove the same in view of the provisions of section 16 of the aforesaid Act. This, the plaintiffs have failed to prove by any cogent evidence. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been observed by the learned lower appellate Court, "the plaintiffs-appellants failed to produce even an iota of evidence on the record to disprove the presumption and to prove that actually no ceremonies were held at the time Gulzar Singh was adopted as a son of Mohana deceased." In these circumstances, no meaningful argument could be raised to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.