Bapna, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for possession.

2. The respondent Bhairon instituted the suit in the court of Munsif, Swai Madhopur, on 18th April, 1950, on the allegations that he and one Mst. Manni purchased a house in Mohalla Har Sahaiji ka Katla at Sawai Madhopur on 31st July, 1928, for a consideration of Rs. 190/-, and there-after the plaintiff remained in possession thereof. About 7 years ago, the plaintiff wanted to shift his residence to his field, and Gyarsi, grand-mother of Bajji, requested him for permission to occupy the the house, as she had none other house to live in. The plaintiff gave permission to Gyarsi and to his wife Jagni, mother of the defendant to live in the house. It was alleged that Gyarsi had died, but Jagni and Bajji continued to live in the house. Jagni had since contracted re-marriage, and Bajji went to her husbands house, and, therefore, the plaintiff asked them to give back the house to him, but Bajji asserted her own claim in survey proceedings, and denied the plaintiffs title on 30th November, 1949, which made it necessary for the plaintiff to institute the present suit for possession.

3. Jagni said that she had no concern with the house, but Bajji contested the suit. She alleged that the real owner of the house was Mst. Manni, and the plaintiff Bhairons name was only inserted in the sale deed because Manni wanted to take him in adoption. It was alleged that the real owner was Manni and the plaintiff had no concern with the house, and that Manni by her will bequeathed the house and other property to Gyarsi, by another will bequeathed that property to Bajji. It was alleged that the house had been in the possession of the defendant and her said predecessor-in-title ever since it was purchased, and the entire allegations as to granting of permission to Gyarsi and Jagni were false.

4. The plaintiff did not allege in the body of the plaint that he was the adopted son of Ganesha, husband of Manni, but since he had mentioned himself as the son of Ganesha and it was for that reason alone that he could claim to have succeeded to the estate of Manni, the matter of adoption was put in issue.

5. Several issues were framed. The trial court, after evidence, came to the conclusion that Bhairon was not the adopted son of Ganesha, and that the house had been purchased by Manni with her own money, and the plaintiff, who was then a minor, did not contribute any sum towards the purchase, and his name was only inserted because he was intended to be adopted. The possession of Bajji and her predecessor-in-title Gyarsi for more than 12 years was held proved, and the suit was held to be barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act. The suit was accord-ingly dismissed.

6. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge was of opinion that the evidence-as to adoption of the plaintiff by Ganesha, husband of Manni, though discrepant was supported by the mention of the plaintiff being the son of Ganesha in the sale deed of the house and by the fact of his being in possession of the other property of Ganesha. He held that the plaintiff, though a minor at the time of the purchase of the house, was earning something, and was in a position to contribute towards the purchase money. He held that the will by Manni had not been proved according to law, and that Gyarsis will, though proved, could not affect Mannis property. In any case, it was held that Gyarsi had died 7 or 8 years before the suit, and the defendant Bajjis possession, which began thereafter was for a period of less than 12 years. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court were set aside, and the plaintiffs suit for possession was decreed with costs. Mst. Bajji has come in second appeal.

7. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the lower court had not considered the case from a proper perspective. The finding as to the plaintiff being the adopted son of Ganesha was based on no evide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document