JUDGMENT:- In this appeal only a short point about the validity of the adoption of Indra Jit Singh by Smt. Saraswati Kunwar is involved. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent in January, 1965 as a nearest reversioner of Smt. Saraswati Kunwar, who allegedly died in the later part of 1964. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal, the lower appellate court has allowed the same. Aggrieved, the defendants have come up in second Appeal.

2. In order to properly understand the case taken up by the plaintiff, it will be necessary to keep in mind the relations between the parties as per pedigree given below :

3. From a look at the pedigree, it will be clear that the branch of Kalloo had come to an end and in the branch of Tulsi, the last male member was Manni Lal, whose widow was Smt. Saraswati Kunwar. The third branch of Vishnu had Nandkumar, the plaintiff, as the last and nearest reversionary male member on the date of the suit. The plaintiff alleged that Manni Lal died in 1930 and Smt. Saraswati Kunwar also died some time in the latter part of 1964. After the death of Manni Lal, Smt. Saraswati Kunwar had become the limited owner of the property and that after her death, the plaintiff as her nearest reversioner, was entitled to the property once belonging to Manni Lal. The defendants had no concern with the property in suit and they were only grand-children of Smt. Saraswati Kunwars brother. On this basis, the suit for possession was filed, by the plaintiff.

4. The defendants put in contest and alleged that the pedigree set up by the plaintiff was incorrect and that Tulsi Ram had no brother by the name of Vishnu and that Kamta died during the lifetime of Manni Lal and also that one Indra Jit Singh had been adopted by Smt. Saraswati Kunwar according to the direction given by her husband and a registered deed of adoption was also executed by her on 19-5-1952. Indra Jit Singh, therefore, claims to be adopted son and on his death the defendants were owners of the property in question. Ajit Singh, defendant No. 1, also died and he is now represented by his legal representatives. A replica was filed by the plaintiff on 12-9-1970, in which the adoption was denied and it was also alleged that Manni Lal had never given any authority to his wife to adopt a son. It was further alleged that even if the adoption may have been taken place, the same was illegal and that Indra Jit Singh was already married in 1942.

5. On these pleas of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 7 issues. On issue No. 2 as to whether Vishnu and Tulsi Ram were real brothers, the court came to the conclusion that Vishnu was not the brother of Tulsi Ram. On issue No. 3 as to whether Manni Lal had died in 1930, the court came to the conclusion that Manni Lal had died in 1930. On the crucial issue No. 4 as to whether Smt. Saraswati Kunwar had adopted Indra Jit Singh, the court held that Smt. Saraswati Kunwar had been given authority to adopt by her husband and that, in fact, Indra Jit Singh had been adopted as a son of her deceased husband Manni Lal. On these findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

6. In appeal before the lower appellate court, mainly two points came up for consideration as to whether the plaintiff was the nearest male reversioner of Manni Lal and whether Smt. Saraswati Kunwar had, an authority to adopt Indrajit Singh and he had, in fact, been adopted. On a consideration of the evidence on the record, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that Vishnu and Tulsi Ram were real brothers and as such the plaintiff was the nearest male reversioner of Smt. Saraswati Kunwar. This finding of the lower appellate court has not been seriously challenged before me. On the other question about the adoption of Indrajit Singh, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that he had, in fact, been adopted by Smt. Saraswati Kunwar, but, on the question whether she had an authority from her husband. Manni Lal to adopt Indra J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document