Judgment

J. L. KAPUR, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Nagpur reversing the decree of the Additional District Judge dismissing the plaintiff s suit. The appellant before us is the defendant Kishori Lal who claimed to be the adopted son, adopted by the husband of the plaintiff, Mst. Chaltibai who is the respondent in this appeal.

2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Mst. Chaltibai, the widow of Lakshminarayan, a Marwari Aggarwal of the district of Bhandara against Badrinarayan defendant No. 1 and his son Kishori Lal defendant No. 2 now appellant for a declaration that properties in Sch. B & C belonged to her as heir to her deceased husband Lakshminarayan and for possession of the property in Sch. D. The facts of the litigation relevant for the purpose of this judgment are these : Badrinarayan and Lakshminarayan were two brothers, the former who was elder was carrying on business at Raipur and the latter who was younger carried on business in the ancestral village named Tirora where it is stated Badrinarayan also was doing some business. Lakshminarayan s first wife died in 1919 leaving a son and a daughter. In 1922 Lakshminarayan married the respondent Mst. Chaltibai. His son died sometime after this marriage and therefore the only remaining child of Lakshminarayan was the daughter. Mst. Jamnabai who was married to one Chotteyal. On 6-1-1936, Lakshminarayan died of a heart disease leaving his estate which is given in Schs. B. C and D and is valued at about Rs. 30,000. Although the plaintiff Chaltibai, now respondent, had alleged that Lakshminarayan died suddenly and did not suffer from any heart disease previous to his death, the appellant pleaded that Lakshminarayan developed heart trouble in 1934. He also pleaded that because of this heart trouble Lakshminarayan became despaired of begetting a son and therefore adopted in Jaisth (May- June) 1935 the appellant Kishorilal then aged 13 years who was the youngest of the five sons of his brother Badrinarayan, the others being Mohanlal, Gowardhan, Nandlal and Narayan. He further pleaded that after his adoption he resided with Lakshminarayan as his adopted son and when Lakshminarayan died he performed his obsequies as such adopted son, was placed on the gaddi and the turban was tied on his head in accordance with the custom of the caste; that he was on the thirteenth day (tervi) taken by the respondent Chaltibai in her lap from Badrinarayan with the consent and in the presence of the relations of Lakshminarayan on the thirteenth day of the death of Lakshminarayan; that he entered into possession of the estate of the deceased Lakshminarayan and was recognised as his adopted son even by the respondent who continued to accept and treat him as such up to 1946; and in 1942 the respondent performed his (the appellant s marriage). After he attained majority he managed the estate himself and there was a partition in the family of Badrinarayan on 30-10-1943, in which the appellant, because of his having been given out in adoption in another family, received no share.

3. The respondent in the plaint denied both the adoption and the treatment or acceptance of the appellant as an adopted son. She also stated that she was an illiterate purdanashin woman who was not conversant with the management of business and after the death of her husband she reposed full confidence in Badrinarayan who assured her that he would properly look after her affairs, business and property and consequently Badrinarayan took over the management of the estate and the account books and also looked after Court work. At his instance she (the respondent) signed certain papers without understanding them or without knowing their contents an sometimes she even signed blank papers. The appellant and his father Badrinarayan then attempted to oust her from the business and the estate of her husband which led to disputes between the parties and proceedings under Ss. 107