The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of a customary adoption and its impact on coparcenary property, as well as the competence of a coparcener to alienate his undivided share in the coparcenary property in accordance with Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1919 and 2384 of 1985, filed by defendant Mohinder Singh and plaintiff Gurbax Singh, respectively. Both these appeals have arisen from the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff regarding the properties of one Dasbndha Singh claiming himself as his adopted son.

2. The said Dasondha Singh was owner of the land measuring 40 Bighas 15 Biswas, a house and an electric motor, as mentioned in the plaint, which are the properties in dispute in the instant case. He died on 4.8.1980. On 6.9.1980, the plaintiff Gurbax Singh, who is sisters son of Dasondha Singh, instituted the present suit for possession of the aforesaid properties in dispute alleging therein that he was adopted by Dasondha Singh vide a registered adoption deed dated 3.2.1946 (Ex.P3) as his son. After the adoption, Dasondha Singh treated him as his son and he also treated him as his lather. He continuously served him during his life time. It was further pleaded that after the death of Dasondha Singh, when the plaintiff approached to the Patwari for entering the mutation of inheritance of the property of Dasondha Singh in his name, he came to know that the same was already got mutated by defendant Mohinder Singh in his name on the basis of two civil court decrees dated 15,3.1973 and 1.5.1974, which were suffered by Dasondha Singh in his favour collusively on the basis of an alleged family settlement. The plaintiff Gurbax Singh also challenged both the decrees by pleading that the same are illegal, void and ineffective and not binding on his right to succeed to the properties left by Dasondha Singh being his adopted son. It was further pleaded that Mohinder Singh was a stranger and was not related to Dasondha Singh, therefore, there was no occasion for him to transfer the ownership rights in the suit properties in favour of Mohinder Singh on the basis of a family settlement, because there cannot be any family settlement between the strangers. The alleged family settlement mentioned in the earlier two suits was nothing but a mere cloak for the transfer of the suit properties. It was further pleaded that there was no pre-existing right of Mohinder Singh in the properties of Dasondha Singh, therefore, the two collusive decrees, which were unregistered, were nothing but instruments of transfer of the property of the values exceeding Rs. 100/-. Thus, those were illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. In addition to the claim of possession, the plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits for use and occupation @. Rs. 300/- per month from the defendant from 1.9.1980 till the actual date of possession of the suit properties.

3. Defendant Mohinder Singh contested the aforesaid suit by alleging that the plaintiff was never validly adopted by Dasondha Singh; the adoption deed, referred to. in the plaint, was only a paper transaction; plaintiff was never treated as adopted son by Dasondha Singh; plaintiff never served him in any capacity and, thus, has no right to succeed his properties and that even the alleged adoption was cancelled by Dasondha Singh vide another registered deed dated 29.9.1964. It was further pleaded that relations between the plaintiff and Dasondha Singh were not good, as the plaintiff was having illicit relations with Ram Rakhi, with whom Dasondha Singh performed Kareva marriage, It was further pleaded that the plaintiff also used to beat and maltreat Dasondha Singh. Thus, Dasondha Singh, out of love and affection and due to the services rendered by the defendant, executed a registered Will dated 23.7.1971 in favour of the defendant regarding his proprieties. It was further pleaded that the defendant and Dasondha Singh formed a coparcenary; the properties in the hands of Dasondha Singh were the coparcenary and under a family settlement, the defendant received the properties in question, as his share, and the possession thereof was also delivered to h