Back
1964 Supreme(Pat) 189
PATNA HIGH COURT
H.Mahapatra and A.B.N.Sinha JJ.
Jagdeo Singh
Versus
Shivadeni Singh
Appeal from Original Decree No. 621 of 1958 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 21, 1964
A karta putra, adopted in accordance with the customs and practices of Mithila, is entitled to inherit the properties of his adoptive father, except those bestowed on others during the adoptive father's lifetime.
Headnote:
PARTITION SUIT - ADOPTION - KARTA PUTRA - FACTUM OF ADOPTION - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANCES - MINORITY OF ADOPTEE - KARTA PUTRA'S RIGHT TO INHERIT - ADOPTIVE FATHER'S PROPERTIES - EXCLUSIVE TITLE - POSSESSION - LIMITATION - PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM - DISMISSAL - CROSS-OBJECTION - MODIFICATION OF DECREE - SHARES IN DIFFERENT SCHEDULES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs instituted a partition suit seeking division of properties described in seven schedules. Defendant No. 1 and his sons (defendants 2 to 4) resisted the suit, claiming previous partition and adoption of defendant No. 1 as karta putra by Bhagelu Singh, the common ancestor. The trial court rejected the defense of previous partition but upheld the adoption and held that defendant No. 1 was entitled to exclusive possession of certain properties, while the plaintiffs were entitled to shares in others.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, on appeal, held that the trial court was correct in finding that defendant No. 1 was adopted as a karta putra by Bhagelu Singh and that he was entitled to inherit Bhagelu Singh's properties, except those bestowed on others during his lifetime. The court also held that the plaintiffs had no interest in the properties described in Schedules 1(ka), 1(kha), and 1(ga) and that these properties belonged exclusively to defendant No. 1. The court further held that the plaintiffs had no interest in the lands described in Schedule 4(ka) and that these lands belonged exclusively to defendants 1 to 6. The court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a 5/4 share in the lands described in Schedule 4(kha), a 5-anna share in the lands described in Schedule 5, a 4-anna share in the lands described in Schedule 6, and a 2 1/2-anna share in the lands described in Schedule 7.
Issues: 1. Whether defendant No. 1 was adopted as a karta putra by Bhagelu Singh? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had any interest in the properties described in Schedules 1(ka), 1(kha), and 1(ga)? 3. Whether the plaintiffs had any interest in the lands described in Schedule 4(ka)? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the lands described in Schedule 4(kha)? 5. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the lands described in Schedule 5? 6. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the lands described in Schedule 6? 7. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the lands described in Schedule 7?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The onus of proving adoption rests on the person seeking to displace the natural succession of property. This onus can be discharged by adducing direct evidence of the fact of adoption or by the existence of circumstances that strengthen the probability of an adoption having taken place. 2. In the present case, the court found that the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties before and after the alleged adoption, were consistent with the defendant's case of adoption and that the direct testimony of defendant No. 1 was consistent with those circumstances. 3. The court also found that the fact that defendant No. 1 was a minor at the time of his adoption did not invalidate the adoption, as the word "karta putra" as used in Mithila ordinarily means a Kritrim form of adoption, which does not require the adoptee to be of majority age. 4. The court further found that the plaintiffs had no interest in the properties described in Schedules 1(ka), 1(kha), and 1(ga) because defendant No. 1 was entitled to inherit these properties as the adopted son of Bhagelu Singh. 5. The court also found that the plaintiffs had no interest in the lands described in Schedule 4(ka) because these lands were taken in settlement by defendants 1 and 2 alone.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection was allowed in part. The decree of the trial court was modified to reflect the court's findings.
A.B.N.Sinha, J.
1. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted Partition Suit No. 50 of 1956, out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge: Muzaffarpur, seeking a partition of their alleged shares in properties described in as many as seven schedules appended to the plaint. In Schedule 1 comprised of 1(ka), 1(Kha), 1(ga) and 1(gha), they claimed share to the extent of twelve annas, the remaining four annas share belonging to the defendants first party. In the lands specified in Schedule 2, the plaintiffs claimed share to the extent of ten annas, the remaining six annas belonging to the defendants first and second parties. In Schedule 8 lands subdivided into 8(ka) and 3(kha), the plaintiffs claimed to the extent of half the other halt belonging to the defendants first party. In the lands described in Schedule 4 to the plaint, both in 4(ka) and 4(kha), a claim was laid to the extent of 1/3rd; in 4(ka) the remaining 2/3rd according to the plaintiffs case, belonged to the defendant first party and in 4(kha) the remaining 2/3rd interest belonged to the defendants first party and defendants 18 to 20, half and half. Share to the extent of five annas was claimed in the land comprised in Schedule 5, the remaining eleven annas belonging to the defendants first and second parties to the extent of three annas and to defendants 7 to 9 to the extent of eight annas. In the lands under the remaining two schedules, namely, in Schedules 6 and 7, the plaintiffs claimed to the extent of four annas and two annas 10 gandas, respectively.
2. Admittedly, one Rangi Singh was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and of defendants 1 to 6. These defendants constituted the defendants first and second parties. Rangi Singh had two sons. Mannu Singh and Gumani Singh. That there was a complete separation between Mannu Singh and Gumani Singh and that Mannu Singhs only son Bhagelu Singh died in a state of separation from the sons of Gumani Singh without leaving any male or female issue was also admitted. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 belonged to Gumani Singhs branch who had three sons, namely, Basawan (sic) Singh, Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh, Basawan Singh having two sons, namely, Ramdeni Singh and Sheodeni Singh. The latter, namely, Sheodeni Singh is defendant No. 1, defendants 2 to 3 being his sons, while defendant No. 4 is his grandson. Ramdeni Singh died leaving two sons, namely, Bihari Singh and Ruplal Singh. Ruplal Singh is defendant No. 5 and the widow of Bihari Singh is defendant No. 6. The plaintiffs represent Biseshwar Singhs branch, plaintiff No. 1 being the son of Bisheshwar Singh and plaintiffs 2 and 3 being his grandson and great grandson, respectively. Sukeshwar Singh admittedly died issueless. According to the case of the plaintiffs, Basawan Singh, the. father of defendant No. 1, and grandfather of defendant No. 5, had died during the lifetime of Gumani Singh, his father, and Ramdeni Singh, the elder brother of defendant No. 1 had pre-deceased Sukesar Singh. It was further the plaintiffs case that one Abhiklakh Singh, a near agnate of the plaintiffs and of defendants 1 to 6 died issueless leaving his widow Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer who had come into possession of her husbands estate and who subsequently had gifted the entire property; in her possession to Bhagelu Singh aforesaid under a registered deed of gift dated the 9th July 1911. At the time of the death of Bhagelu Singh, Basawan Singh, the father of defendant No. 1 being dead, only Bishrshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh entered into possession of the properties which had been obtained by Bhagelu Singh by gift in equal shares by virtue of succession.
It was further the plaintiffs case that after the death of Gumani Singh, the sons of Basawan Singh and Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh had separated from one another in mess and business, but the properties bad not been partitioned by metes and bounds. Thereafter, on Sukeshwar Singh dying issueless and R
