Modi, J.—This is a regular first appeal by the plaintiff Mst. Asa Bai against the judgment of the learned District Judge, dated the 12th July,1951, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for possession of] certain immovable property. The following pedigree table will be found helpful in understanding the contentions between the parties :—

Rajmal(Died on 29.12.1917)

Panna Kanwar Bai(first wife) Mst. Jarao Kanwar(second wife)(died on 4.1.1928)

Mst. Chandan Bai(Dead) Mst. Asa Bai(Plaintiff) Chand Kanwar(Died on14.8.1928) Prabhu Lal (allegedto be adopted)

Kapoorchand

Khairatilal aliasDharamchand(deft. 2)

The dispute between the parties relates to a house situate in Pataliyan Chowkri Vishesh-warji in the city of Jpr. the boundaries of which have been described at the foot of the plaint.

2. The case of the plaintiff Mst. Asa Bai, daughter of Rajmal, according to the amended plaint, is that Rajmal was survived by his widow Mst. Jarao Kanwar and two of his daughters, the plaintiff and Mst. Chandkanwar, and it is not clear from the record when Mst. Chandan Bai, the third daughter of Rajmal had died ; but we are not concerned with her. Mst. Jarao Kanwar succeeded her husband as his sole heir. She died on the 4th January, 1928, and before her death, she had allegedly adopted defendant No. 1 Prabhulal to her husband by an adoption deed Ex. A 1 dated the Baisakh Sudi 3 Smt. 1976 (corresponding to the 2nd May, 1919). But the plaintiffs case is that Mst. Jarao (her mother) had cancelled the same by a registered deed Ex. 19 dated the 11th February, 1923. It is alleged that Mst. Jarao Kanwar remained in possession of the disputed house during her life time and after her death Mst. Chand Kanwar the plaintiffs sister came into possession thereof, It is not in dispute that the latter also died on the 14th August, 1928, leaving behind her an only minor son Khairatilal alias Dharamchand to whom we shall refer hereafter as Khairatilal, who has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 in this suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1 Prabhulal assumed unlawful possession of the suit house as adopted son of Rajmal but he no longer occupied that status as his adoption had been cancelled by Mst. Jarao Kanwar, widow of Rajmal, and, therefore, he had no right whatever to it. It may be mentioned here that there was considerable litigation between Mst. Jarao Kanwar and Prabhulal, and it is in evidence that a number of suits were filed by them against each other but nothing decisive came out of this litigation so far as Prabhulals status as the adopted son of Rajmal was concerned. Reference may be made in this connection to Ex. 8 which is a copy of the judgment of the Chief Court of the then State of Jaipur, dated the 24th December, 1925, from which it appears that Prabhulal was allowed to withdraw his suits against Mst. Jarao Kanwar seeking a declaration as to his adoption to the deceased Rajmal and praying for the setting aside of the cancellation deed thereof with liberty to bring other suits in future. It is clear enough that Prabhulal remained in possession of the suit house even after the alleged cancellation of his adoption and certainly after the death of Mst. Jarao Kanwar or Mst. Chand Kanwar who both died in 1928 as already stated above. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 Khairatilal son of Mst. Chand Kanwar brought a suit for possession of the house in dispute on the 13th July, 1935. This suit was decreed by the trial court on the 27th November, 1937. Consequently, the said Khairatilal obtained possession of the suit house through court on the 12th December, 1937. Prabhulal appealed to the Chief Court of the then State of Jaipur but without success. Thereafter he appealed to the Judicial Committee of the same State by which the appeal was allowed on the ground that Khairatilal had no right to bring the suit in the presence of Rajmals daughter Mst. Asa Bai, the present plaintiff, who was a nearer heir to the deceased. In the result, possession of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document