Civil Appeal No2877 of 1977
From the Judgment and Decree dated 1981977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No 334 of 1975
R Bana for the Appellants
Harbans Lal and GK Bansal for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered Kehar Singh had two wives Basant Kaur and Sahib Devi
Sahib Devi died during Kehar Singh s life time
Sahib Devi s son was Niranjan Singh who also died during Kehar Singh s life time
Niranjan Singh had four sons and one daughter
On 26th April 1947 Kehar Singh in lieu of maintenance made three oral gifts of properties situated in three different villages in favour of his wife Basant Kaur
The question which arose for consideration before the lower Court was whether Basant Kaur got an absolute estate in the gifted properties as result of the passing of the 
In regard to the land in village Ballowal the lower Courts have held that she got an absolute estate
The High Court was concerned in the second Appeal with the lands in village Dhaipai and Chominda and it held the gift having been without any power of alienation would fall under Section 142
The Exhibit D I was the report of the Patwari in connection with the mutation proceedings and it said Today Kehar Singh owner of Khewat came alongwith Narain Singh Lambardar and stated that he had on 14th April 1947 made an oral gift of land half of total land measuring 8 bighas Pukhta 3 Biswas and 3 Biswani which is 4 Bighas Pukhta 12 Biswas and 1 Biswani as detailed in favour of his wife Mst
Basant Kaur and given possession of the same
I had only one son who is dead and he had four sons and no other male issue
There is no certainty of life
She served me
Lambardar attests so the mutation is entered
 387 On 30th July 1947 the Assistant Collector made the following orders In the gathering Kehar Singh donor and Basant Kaur donee identified by Kishan Singh Lambardar are present
The change of possession of this case is admitted and verified by the donor and the donee
Donor stated that he has got no son
I had got two wives
My grand sons it is possible may not gift maintenance to my wife
With this view I make the gift
Gift is for maintenance
After gift there would be no powers of mortgage or sale
After the death of Basant Kaur Malkiat Singh Amar Singh Gurdeep Singh and Mohan Singh children would be heirs
This gift is of 12 share or Khasra No46582468 measuring 4 Bighas 12 Biswas 1 Biswani Khewat Nos 324 to 326 which is attested in favour of Mst
Basant Kaur donee
 The High Court on interpretation of the Assistant Collector s report came into conclusion that Basant Kaur derived only a limited estate inasmuch as such a gift according to the high Court would fall directly under section 142 of the and as such the limited estate of Basant Kaur would not stand enlarged into an absolute estate
The challenge was to the gift made by Basant Kaur in favour of two step grand sons ignoring the other two
There is no doubt that Basant Kaur had the right of maintenance and the gift was explicitly in lieu of maintenance
As such we are of the view that it was not a case of her acquiring any new property by virtue of the gift but it was a case of her right of maintenance being given to her by way of a gift
It was a property acquired by gift in lieu of maintenance
This acquisition on 26th April 1947 having been prior to the  we are of the view that she having acquired this property by way of gift in lieu of her antecedent right to maintenance it would fall under sub section 1 and not under sub section 2 of section 14 of the 
In this view we are in consonance with the decisions in Bai Vijia Dead by Lrs
vs Thakorbhai Chelabhai  Ors   Gulwant Kaur  Anr
vs Mohinder Singh  Ors 19871 3 SCC 674 Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai  Anr  and Jaswant Kaur vs Major Harpal Singh In view of the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the decisions of Mst
Karmi vs Amru  Ors  and Kothi Satyanarayana vs Galla Sithayya  Ors
   are distinguishable on facts
388 In the result the Judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside this appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed
However under the facts and circumstances of the case we make no orders as to costs
GN Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession of certain properties left by her deceased husband L
The appellant contested the suit on the grounds that L had adopted him as his son six months before his death In addition to the oral evidence of adoption the appellant alleged that he performed the obsequies of L as such adopted son that on the thirteenth day after the death of L he was taken by the respondent in her lap that he entered into possession of the estate of L that the 699 respondent performed his marriage and that he was recognised as the adopted son of L even by the respondent
The appellant further pleaded that the respondent was estopped from challenging his adoption by her representations in previous legal proceedings and in documents and on account of the fact that the appellant had by this adoption lost his share of the properties in his natural family
The respondent denied both the adoption and the treatment of acceptance of the appellant as the adopted son of L
The trial Court dismissed the suit holding the adoption proved
On appeal the High Court held the adoption was not proved and decreed the suit
Both Courts held that the respondent was not estopped from challenging the adoption
Held that the High Court
had correctly held that the adoption of the appellant by L had not been established
As an adoption results in changing the course of succession the evidence to support it should be such that it should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth
Held further that the
respondent was not estopped from disputing the adoption
The correct rule of estopped applicable in the case of adoption is that it does not confer status it only shuts the mouths of certain persons if they try to deny the adoption
But where both parties are conversant with the true state of facts the doctrine of estopped has no application
Admissions made by a party are not conclusive and unless they constitute estopped the maker is at liberty to prove that they were mistaken or were untrue
Presumptions arising from the conduct of a party cannot sustain an adoption even though it might have been acquiesced in by all concerned when the evidence shows that the adoption did not take place
Mohori Bibi vs Dhurmdas Ghosh 1902 30 IA 114 relied upon