Ram Kaur vs Narvail Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Smt. Ram Kaur widow of Bakhtawar Singh directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Jagadhari dated 17.2.1998. An order of eviction was passed giving the tenant two months time to vacate the premises. During the pendency of the revision petition Smt. Ram Kaur is stated to have died. An application has been filed by Baljinder Singh under Order 22 of the CPC for him to the impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased. Baljinder Singh claims that he is the adopted son of Bakhtawar Singh and his wife. It has been pointed that during the pendency of the eviction petition Bakhtawar Singh died. His two widows Ram Piari and Ram Kaur were impleaded as the legal representatives. Subsequently, Ram Piari also died. Bakhtawar Singh was thereafter represented by sole surviving widow Ram Kaur. It is claimed that after the death of Bakhtawar Singh Baljinder (Bakhtawar ?) Singh has obtained the succession certificate with respect to the estate of Baljinder Singh. Since the right to sure survived, the application states that he should be impleaded as the legal representative.

Reply has been filed by the respondent. It is denied that applicant is the adopted son of Bakhtawar Singh. Bakhtawar Singh is stated to have died on 22.6.1992. At no time the present applicant claimed himself to be legal representative. Even when Bakhtawar Singh died, the applicant did not get himself impleaded as the legal representative. Plea has been raised that no date of the alleged adoption even has been given. It is denied that applicant had been living with Smt. Ram Kaur or could inherit any such right. Reliance was placed on the voter''s list to show that applicant has been shown as son of Sewa Singh and not of Bakhtawar Singh. Even in the ration card the name of the applicant does not find a mention in the family of Bakhtawar Singh. He is still living with Sewa Singh.

The main question that, therefore, comes up for consideration is as to whether the present applicant is the adopted son of Bakhtawar Singh or not.

This Court had directed the applicant to produce his matriculation certificate. It reveals that he passed his matriculation and is shown as son of Sewa Singh rather than Bakhtawar Singh. This was of 2.12.1984.

It is interesting to mention that the applicant feels shy in mentioning the exact date as to when he was adopted by Bakhtawar Singh and his widow. Even in the voter''s list the applicant is not shown to be a voter along with Bakhtawar Singh and his wife. Not only that the copy of the ration card of Bakhtawar Singh and his two wives had been placed on the record which does not show that the present applicant was a member of the family.

To crown it all is the fact when Bakhtawar Singh died during the course of proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, the applicant did not get himself impleaded as the legal representative as the adopted son. Necessarily, if the applicant had been adopted, he would have got himself impleaded as the legal representative of his adoptive father. The applicant, was married on 25.2.1994 and therein also it one Sewa Singh who is describing himself as father of the applicant rather than Bakhtawar Singh. All these facts show that the applicant is not the son of Bakhtawar Singh.

On behalf of the applicant reliance was placed on the ration card, copy of which has been produced. But this has been produced only during the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, the document is of little avail. However, strong reliance is placed on the succession certificate obtained by the applicant and one widow of Bakhtawar Singh in which he described himself as the adopted son. But this document is of no consequence keeping in view of voluminous material on the record which shows that the took matriculation examination as son of Sewa Singh. In the marriage card he was also shown as son of Sewa Singh. He was also living with Sewa Singh. Otherwise also it is not shown as to when was the adoption effected. If it had been affected subsequently, then it is doubtful that a person who is born some time in 1963 could be adopted at that late age and he continues to be shown and describing himself as son of Sewa Singh. To that effect the only logical conclusion thus would be that applicant is not adopted son of Bakhtawar Singh. Therefore, he cannot be impleaded as the legal representative.

As a consequence thereto, the application as well as the revision petition must fail and are dismissed.

Revision dismissed.