Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 576
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajive Bhalla, J.
Ram Singh And Another
Versus
Hardip Singh And Others
Regular Second Appeal No. 1384 of 1982,
Decided On : MARCH 24, 2009
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of validity attached to a registered adoption deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the rights of coparceners in ancestral property.
Headnote:
Adoption - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the presumption of validity attached to a registered adoption deed under Section 16. It also examined the legal principles related to customary ceremonies of adoption and the rights of coparceners in ancestral property.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged a judgment and decree that dismissed their suit for a declaration that a collusive decree and mutation were null and void. The suit was based on the claim that the appellant No. 1 was adopted by the respondent and his wife, and that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit, holding the judgment and decree and mutation to be illegal and void. The first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the adoption was invalid and the suit was barred by limitation. The court also held that the suit property was not ancestral and that the Karta had the right to deal with the property as he deemed appropriate.
Issues: The court considered the validity of the adoption, the nature of the suit property, the limitation to challenge a decree, and the rights of coparceners in ancestral property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the adoption deed, duly signed and registered, raised a presumption of validity under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It also established that customary ceremonies of adoption were no longer essential for a valid adoption after the Act came into force. The court further ruled that a Karta could not alienate ancestral property to fraudulently deprive a coparcener of their share.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the first appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decision.
Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. The appellants challenge the judgment and decree dated 08.10.1979, passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Barnala, dated 30.08.1979 and as a result, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants.
2. The plaintiff-appellants, Ram Singh and Hamir Kaur filed a suit praying for grant of a declaration that the collusive decree dated 09.02.1972, and the mutation No. 4353 dated 08.04.1976 sanctioned thereon be declared null and void. The appellants pleaded that Hamir Kaur, appellant No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of Attal Singh. As they were issueless, they adopted Ram Singh (appellant No. 1) by a registered adoption deed dated 06.04.1960, duly signed by Ram Singhs natural parents and by Attal Singh and Hamir Kaur. Attal Singh however abandoned Hamir Kaur and Ram Singh and began living with Amarjit Kaur who gave birth to five children. Attal Singh, in order to deprive Ram Singh of his share in ancestral property suffered an illegal and collusive decree dated 09.02.1972, transferring the suit land in favour of Hardip Singh, Devinder Singh and Karamjit Singh sons of Amarjit Kaur.
3. In opposition, the respondents denied the adoption and averred that Amarjit Kaur is the legally wedded wife of Attal Singh. The decree passed in their favour, on the basis of the compromise, is legal and valid and as Attal Singh, is a Sikh Jat, he is not governed by Hindu Law in matters of alienation, succession and adoption. It was also averred that as the suit land is neither ancestral nor coparcenary property, Attal Singh was free to alienate the property in any such manner as he deemed appropriate.
4. It would be necessary to mention here that Attal ingh, who was arraigned as a defendant in the suit, put in appearance before the trial court, but did not file a written statement. He was eventually proceeded against ex parte on 16.05.1976, but subsequently appeared as a witness to depose in favour of the respondents.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues : "1. Whether Ram Singh plaintiff is adopted son of Attal Singh defendant ? OPP
2. Whether Ram Singh plaintiff and Attal Singh defendant constitute joint Hindu family? OPP
3. Whether the suit property is coparcenary property? OPP
4. Whether the impugned decree dated 09.02.1972 is collusive between defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and is not binding on the plaintiffs ? OPP
5. Whether Amar Kaur is not legally wedded wife of Attal Singh defendant and defendant Nos. 3,4, 5 are not the issues of Attal Singh defendant and Amar Kaur ? OPP
6. Whether defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have not been correctly described ? OPD 6-A) Whether the suit is within time ? OPP
6-B Whether the plaintiff is governed by the Hindu Succession Act in the matters of alienation? OPP
7. Relief."
6. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the (trial court) decreed the suit and held that the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1972 and mutation No.4353 sanctioned on 08.04.1976 are illegal and void. It was held that Ram Singh was validly adopted by Attal Singh and Hamir Kaur by a registered adoption deed dated 06.04.1960. It was also held that as the suit land is ancestral coparcenary property, the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1972, suffered by Attal Singh, would not deprive Ram Singh of his rights in coparcenary property. The learned trial court also held that as Attal Singhs first wife namely Hamir Kaur is alive, his marriage with Amarjit Kaur is void and their progeny would have no right, title or interst in the suit property. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the respondents filed an appeal. The first appellate court accepted the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit.
7. The first appellate court held that though the
