The burden of proving the unsoundness of mind of an adopting father lies on the party alleging it, and the presumption of sanity is rebutted by evidence of unsoundness of mind. An adoption is invalid if the adopting father was of unsound mind at the time of the adoption.

1. This appeal was filed by plaintiff Shivchand against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Jodhpur dated October 21, 1965. Shivchand died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives are now on the record.

2. There has been much controversy about the subject matter of the suit and it is necessary to state the facts but before doing so it will be better to mention the genealogy (for genealogy see page 192) of the parties so as to bring out their relationship.

3. Hathi Ram, the common ancestor of the parties, was admittedly the "jagirdar" of village Polawas. He was a Purohit and had two sons, Gopinath and Hardeo. Mansaram and Maidas were the grandsons of Gopinath, being sons of Motilal. The dispute relates to the adoption of Madanlal (defendant), a great great grandson of Hardeo, by Mansaram. That adoption was challenged by plaintiff Shivchand by this suit on May 2, 1950. It was alleged by him that defendant Madanlal's grandfather Meghraj went in adoption to his maternal grandfather Kaniram alias Gunraj Chhangani so that he and his descendants ceased to have anything to do with Hathi Ram's "jagir" or other property, and could not be validly adopted by any of the descendants of Hathi Ram under the law of "mooris-i-ala." It was stated that Mansaram instituted a suit for partition against Maidas, but compromised it by an agreement (Ex. 1) dated March 21, 1917 under which he got only an allowance of Rs. 7 per mensem for his maintenance and made Maidas the exclusive owner of the rest of the "jagir" and the other property.It was pleaded that Mansaram became a lunatic sometime thereafter, and remained so throughout his life, so that the sum of Rs. 7 which was deposited by Maidas every month under the aforesaid agreement (Ex. 1) was withdrawn by Fatehraj or Moolraj as his guardians. It was the case of the plaintiff that Mansaram was under their influence and was afraid of them, and was not in a position to understand what was good or bad for him. Maidas had no son and his widow adopted the plaintiff on October 14, 1939, under a registered deed of adoption. Thereupon Fatehraj, Moolraj, Gulraj and Madhodas got a deed of adoption written regarding the adoption of Madanlal by Mansaram. That document was presented for registration, but the Registrar held that Mansaram was of unsound mind and refused to register it on January 29, 1940. On appeal, the document was sent back to the Registrar, but he again refused to register it by his order dated July 14, 1940 on the ground that Mansaram was a lunatic.Madanlal then instituted a suit on September 11, 1940 in the Court of Joint Kotwal No. 1 for the compulsory registration of the deed of adoption. The Joint Kotwal held on January 4, 1944 that Mansaram was a lunatic, appointed Mr. Hukamchand, Advocate, as his guardian ad litem and ultimately dismissed the suit on August 3, 1944. A week thereafter, another deed of adoption (Ex. P. W. 10/1) was got executed by Mansaram. It was presented for registration on October 10, 1944 and was registered the next day in spite of the objection of the plaintiff. As Madanlal gave himself out to be the adopted son of Mansaram on the basis of that document and wanted to take his share in Gopinath's "jagir" and other property, he filed a suit against the plaintiff in the District Court alleging that the plaintiff was not the son of Maidas. That suit was opposed by the present plaintiff on the ground, inter alia, that Madanlal was not the validly adopted son of Mansaram. Thereafter the plaintiff himself raised the present suit alleging that the deed of adoption Ex. P. W. 10/1 cast a cloud on his rights and there was reason to apprehend that Madanlal might withdraw his suit and thereby prevent a trial of the dispute regarding the validity of his own adoption by Mansaram.The plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration that the defendant had no right to the "jagir" and other property of Gopinath and his descendants