MODI, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendant Budharam in a suit for cancellation of adoption and for possession.

2. It is necessary to give a brief pedigree table explaining the relationship between the parties in order properly to understand and appreciate the contentions between them:—

Khiyani

Moola = Mst. Rukma (widow) Mukhram|

Daughter = Daughters husband Doongra Beerbal & others (plaintiffs)

Budhram(Deft. No.1 Appellant) Khyali(Deft.2 Chetram(Deft.3)

3. The dispute relates to the property of the deceased Moola. The plaintiffs case was that Moola had died without any male heir but that on 18.7.1925, her widow Mst. Rukma took in adoption her son-in-law Doonga. It was contended that this adoption was invalid in law and contrary to the custom prevalent in the family of the parties. It was also alleged that the property in dispute was the joint ancestral property of the common ancestor Khiyani. Mst. Rukma died some time in Baisakh of Svt. 2003 corresponding to April, 1945. The plaintiffs brought their present suit on her death on 18th February, 1946, in which they prayed for a declaration that the adoption of Doonga was against law and custom and they also prayed for possessi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document