The judgment highlighted the significance of credible evidence, the relevance of previous judgments as legal precedent, and the application of Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in property disputes.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is the plaintiffs appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant has miserably failed to prove that he was ever adopted by Smt. Keshar Devi defendant-respondent No. 1. It is the estate of defendant-respondent No. 1, which is being claimed by the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of adoption. There is no document brought on record to prove the adoption nor there is any collateral evidence proving the fact of adoption of the plaintiff-appellant by Smt. Keshar Devi defendant-respondent No. 1. When she herself appeared in the witness box as DW1, she categorically denied having adopted the plaintiff-appellant. Reliance has also been placed on an earlier suit filed by Diwan Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant titled as Diwan Singh v. Smt. Santosh, where it has been asserted that he alongwith Sher Singh were the owners in possession of the suit land. Had Diwan Singh given Suraj Mal in adoption to Smt. Keshar Devi, then she would not have asserted her right as well as right of her brother upon the suit land.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal, can be understood with the help of a pedigree table and the same is as unden- Datta Ram | Udmi ------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Diwan Singh Sher Singh Ranjit Surjit Singh | | | ------------------ | | | | Surajmal (plaintiff) | | Smt. Kesar Devi Krishan Kumar Widow (defendant No. 1) | ----------------------------------------- | | | | Smt. Santosh Partap Singh Jai Singh Sajjan Kumar (daughter) (-----sons---) Defendant No. 2.

3. It is evident from the pedigree table that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellant was one Datta Ram, who was owner in possession of 580 kanals 18 marlas of land. After his death, his son Udmi Ram inherited the same, who died in the year 1970. The land then devolved upon his four sons, namely, Diwan Singh, Sher Singh, Ranjit Singh and Surjit in equal shares. Surjit Singh died in the year 1975 as issueless and his share was mutated in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1, his widow, namely Keshar Devi. The plaintiff-appellant is son of Diwan Singh i.e., the brother of deceased Surjit Singh, who was the husband of defendant-respondent No. 1. It was asserted by the plaintiff-appellant that he was adopted by the defendant-respondent No. 1 on 2.6.1978 and that even his marriage was also performed by her. According to the assertion of the plaintiff-appellant, the suit land was given to him on 28.10.1990 by the defendant-respondent No. 1, who had relinquished all her rights with regard to the suit property. It has further been alleged that defendant-respondent No. 2 Smt. Santosh Kumari, who is daughter of another brother Ranjit had obtained a decree on 27.5.1995 fraudulently in respect of the suit land.

4. Both the Courts below have found concurrently that there is no evidence of adoption. The view of the learned Lower Appellate Court with regard to the nature of evidence led by the plaintiff-appellant to prove adoption, reads as under:-

No cogent evidence has been led to prove the factum of adoption of plaintiff by defendant Kesar Devi. The oral evidence led by the plaintiff, which is otherwise in a perfunctory manner, cannot be believed without their being any documentary proof. No adoption deed has been placed on the file. None of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff has either given the date, month and year of adoption or the date, month and year when the plaintiff acquired the land by way of family settlement. PW1 Sarbati is the mother of the plaintiff and PW2 Krishana is the wife of the plaintiff. Their evidence cannot be believed being interested persons. The evidence of PW3 Ajmer Singh, who is also distantly related to the plaintiff, is also cannot be believed. He has not stated even a single word about the acquiring of the land of Kesar Devi by the plaintiff. He, in his examination-in-