Back
1961 Supreme(SC) 61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Shuganchand, Appellant
Versus
Prakash Chand and others, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1957, dated 16-2-1961.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Appellant; Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior Advocate. (M /s. A. G. Ratnaparkhi and K. K. Raizada, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, ACHHRU RAM, J.B.DADACHAN, K.K.RAIZADA, P.L.VOHRA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RANIESHWAR NATH, S.N.ANDLEY
An adopted son, even among Jains, has the same rights as a natural son and can succeed to the estate of his adoptive father, including property inherited from the adoptive father's ancestors.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'ADOPTION - HINDU LAW - JAIN - ADOPTED SON - RIGHTS OF - APPOINTMENT OF HEIR - DISTINCTION - ADOPTION BY WIDOW - VALIDITY - DIVESTING OF ESTATE OF WIDOW - DEATH OF WIDOW - SUCCESSION BY ADOPTED SON.', 'SUBJECT': 'Adoption - Hindu Law - Jain - Adopted Son - Rights of - Appointment of Heir - Distinction - Adoption by Widow - Validity - Divesting of Estate of Widow - Death of Widow - Succession by Adopted Son.', 'ACT SECTION LIST': []}
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Jain, filed a suit for possession of certain immovable property against the respondent, a trespasser. The appellant claimed that he was the adopted son of Mannilal, who was the adopted son of Kanakmal, the original owner of the property. The respondent denied the appellant's title and possession of Kanakmal and pleaded that he had improved the property and constructed a building on it at considerable expense.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the appellant and passed a declaratory decree in his favor. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the appellant's suit. The High Court set aside the appellate court's finding and allowed the appeal, decreeing the appellant's suit. The respondent filed a revisional application before the Judicial Committee, Huzur Durbar, Gwalior, which remanded the case to the first appellate court for consideration of certain issues. The appellate court again decided the remanded issues in favor of the appellant and passed a decree in his favor. The High Court allowed the respondent's second appeal and dismissed the appellant's suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was the validly adopted son of Mannilal and thus entitled to succeed to the estate of Kanakmal? 2. Whether the adoption by the appellant's adoptive mother, Sugan Bai, was valid and could divest the estate vested in Kanakmal's widow, Jadav Bai? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to possession of the suit property after the death of Jadav Bai?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was the validly adopted son of Mannilal and thus entitled to succeed to the estate of Kanakmal. The court found that the adoption was proved and that Jadav Bai, Kanakmal's widow, was present at the time of the adoption and gave consent to it. 2. The court held that the adoption by the appellant's adoptive mother, Sugan Bai, was valid and could divest the estate vested in Kanakmal's widow, Jadav Bai. The court found that Jadav Bai had died before the suit was filed and that there was no question of divesting the estate vested in her. 3. The court held that the appellant was entitled to possession of the suit property after the death of Jadav Bai. The court found that the appellant had stayed with the family all the time after his adoption and had been treated as a member of the family by Jadav Bai and his adoptive mother. The court also found that the rest of the estate left by Kanakmal was in the possession of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order passed by the High Court in second appeal was set aside, and that of the District Court was restored with costs throughout.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave arises from a suit filed by the appellant Shuganchand, who is a Jain, for possession of certain immovable property against the trespasser Umacharan Pradhan the respondent. Pending litigation Umacharan died and Prakash Chand and two others were brought on the record as his legal representatives. We will hereafter refer to Umacharan as the respondent. The property in question is a garden in Mouja and it bears Khasra No. 345 Rakba 71/4. The appellant s case was that this property originally belonged to Kanakmal who died in 1910-11. During his life-time Kanakmal had adopted Mannilal who predeceased him leaving behind him his widow Sugan Bai. In the result at the date of Kanakmal s death the two members of his family were his widow Jadav Bai and his widowed daughter-in-law Sugan Bai. In 1922-23 Sugan Bai adopted the appellant. Jadav Bai died in 1932 and in 1936 the present suit for possession was filed by the appellant. According to the appellant, when he attained the age of majority he took steps to obtain possession of the property left by his grand-father and found that the respondent s father Munshi Gajpat Rai had adversely taken possession of the property in 1925. On a demand being made for the delivery of the said property the trespasser refused to accede to the demand and so the present suit had to be filed.
2. The claim thus made by the appellant was resisted by the respondent on several grounds. It was urged that the respondent and his father had constructed a building and planted trees on the garden and had improved the quality of the said property at considerable expense. The title of Kanakmal as well as that of the appellant was denied; so was the possession of Kanakmal disputed. It was urged that neither Kanakmal nor after his death his widow ever obtained possession of the property and so the suit was barred by limitation. In the alternative it was pleaded that the appellant would not be entitled to recover possession of the said property unless he reimbursed the respondent to the tune of Rs. 15,000 which had been spent by him and his father in improving the said property and in constructing a building on it. One should have thought that the suit in which these simple pleas were raised should have terminated without unnecessary delay; but, as we will presently point out, this simple action for possession against the trespasser has had a chequered and somewhat tortuous career.
3. At the trial the learned trial judge framed seven issues. He found that the suit was within time, that the genealogical table given by the appellant was correct, and so the appellant, by adoption, became a member of the family of Kanakmal and was thus entitled to sue. The title of Kanakmal was held established. In regard to the plea made by the respondent that the land had been improved and construction had been made on it at considerable expense, the learned judge found in favour of the respondent and ordered that all the materials of the entire super-structure of the kothi and the garage built by the respondent belonged to him and he was at liberty to remove the said material. Similarly the learned judge found in favour of the respondent on the issue about the appellant s claim for Rs. 450/-. In the result a declaratory decree was passed in favour of the appellant and an order was made calling upon the respondent to deliver possession of the said property in suit to the appellant. This decree was prononuced on January 11, 1944, that is to say, the suit took eight years for disposal.
4. The respondent then took the matter in appeal and succeeds before the appellate court, the said court having held that on the basis of the evidence produced by the appellant it was not possible to arrive at the conclusion that the garden in dispute was the property of Kanakmal, and so Issue No. 3 was answered against the appellant. In the result the appeal was allowed and the appellant s suit was dismisse
