Wanchoo, C. J.-This is a first appeal by Heeralal and Hansraj against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Churu.

2. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by Mahadeo, Tarachand and Rameshwar. Their case was that they had 3/4ths share in certain property situate in Sujangarh and that this share was not liable to be attached in the decree obtained by Heeralal and Hansraj defendant appellants against Ladhuram and his son Jairam. The defendants had attached one house and half share in another in Sujangarh in execution of the decree which they had obtained against Laduram and his son Jairam on the 31st October, 1936. The plaintiffs case was that 3/4ths share in one house and 1/2 of the attached share in the other house were not liable to be attached as the plaintiffs had 3/4ths share in the entirely of both the houses. The plaintiffs based their case on the following pedigree—

Balooram

Binjraj Nanagram (died sonless)

Jagannath Laduram (Deft.) Mahadeo (Pltf.1) Gordhan

Jairam (Deft.) Ghanshyam Doongar Ram Rameshwar

(Went in

Adoption)

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the two houses in dispute were ancestral property coming on in their family from the time of Baluram. After the death of Nanagram, the entirely of the property came to Binjraj, After Binjrajs death, Laduram and his three brothers had 1/4 share each in the two houses. Consequently the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to the release of 3/4th share belonging to them.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Their case was that Laduram was adopted by Nanagram and therefore, Laduram had 1/2 share in the ancestral property. They also claimed that one of the houses belonged entirely to Nanagram and, there foce, Laduram was the owner of the whole house.

5. A number of issues were framed by the trial court but the two main issues which now require consideration are (1) whether Laduram was an adopted son of Nanagram deceased and (2) whether the property in suit was joint or the exclusive property of Laduram.

6. The trial court came to the conclusion that Laduram had not been adopted by Nanagram. It also came to the conclusion that the property was joint property and not the exclusive property of Laduram. It, therefore, decreed the suit,

7. Heeralal and Hansraj have come in appeal against this decree and it is contended on their behalf that the adoption of Laduram to Nanagram has been proved, and, therefore, in any case, the court was not right in releasing 3/4ths share in both houses. Further, it is contended that the defendants have succeeded in proving that Laduram was exclusively entitled to one of the houses and, therefore, the decree of , the court to that extent is also wrong.

8 We shall first consider the issue as to whether Laduram was an adopted son of Nanagram. On that point, there is documentary evidence to show that Laduram had been adopted in the khola from by the widow of Nanagram to her husband in Svt. 1969. It seems that in the former Bikaner State it was usual for those making an adoption to get the adoption recognized by the State. There was a charge in the shape of a fee which was paid in this connection, and a certificate signed by some member or the other of the State Council was issued in that connection. There is documentary evidence to prove that there was an application on behalf of Mst. Sundri, widow of Nanagram, for taking Laduram in adoption in the khola from to her husband Nanagram and that that application was allowed and a certificate, Ex. D-22, was issued. There levant documents in that connection are Exs. D-5 to D-17. Then we have the evidence that Laduram called himself the son of Nanagram in the suit in which the decree was passed against him in October. 1936. In the written statement that was filed by him, he described himself at the end of Ex. D-24 as the adopted son of Nanagram. As against this evidence by the defendants, there is only the oral testimony of the three plaintiffs and their cousin Mst. Jam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document