IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2992 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 07, 2009 Hari Ram .....Appellant Versus Krishan and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. I.S. Pabla, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 8. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the appellant that he was owner in possession of half share of the land measuring 68 kanals 18 marlas situated at village Talwara Khurd and, that the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1991 in Civil Suit No. 830-C of 1991 was null and void and not binding on his rights, was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, which decision was upheld in appeal by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa. Hence, the present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant had two brothers, namely, Manphool and Hunta Ram. The dispute in the present case relates to the land measuring 68 kanals 18 marlas belonging to Hunta Ram, who was issueless and died as such on 25.6.1994. During his life time, aforementioned Hunta Ram R.S.A. No. 2992 of 2008 -2- suffered decree dated 5.12.1991 in favour of his nephew Krishan in Civil Suit No. 830-C of 1991 filed by aforementioned Krishan regarding half share of land measuring 68 kanals 18 marlas on the ground that said Krishan had been adopted by Hunta Ram and a family settlement had taken place under which half share of aforementioned land was given to him. According to the plaintiff in the present suit, his brother Hunta Ram and his wife never adopted Krishan as their son and, therefore, Hunta Ram remained absolute owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, the plaintiff and his other brother, namely, Manphool inherited the aforementioned land left behind by him in equal shares. The decree dated 5.12.1991 was obtained by Krishan in collusion with his father Manphool and, therefore, it was null and void and not binding upon his interests and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that no issue had been framed by the trial Court as to whether Krishan had been adopted by Hunta Ram and in the absence of any such issue, it could not be said that Krishan had been adopted by Hunta Ram and had, thus, become the beneficiary of half share of the agricultural land on the basis of the alleged family settlement. The plaintiff had specifically mentioned in his plaint, as is clear from the judgment passed by the trial Court, that Hunta Ram and his wife never adopted Krishan as their son. This stand was denied by the defendants by pleading that Hunta Ram had adopted Krishan as his son and said Krishan was living with deceased Hunta Ram. In such a situation, it R.S.A. No. 2992 of 2008 -3- was for the plaintiff-appellant to insist before the trial Court for framing an issue regarding the adoption of Krishan by Hunta Ram and then to ask the said Court to put burden upon the defendants to establish the said fact. Nothing of that sort was done by the plaintiff as he never challenged the framing of the issues. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence on the record regarding the fact that Krishan had been adopted by Hunta Ram during the latter's life time. Though the defendants brought on record ration card Ex.DW4/A yet a number of family members of Hunta Ram were mentioned therein whereas the fact was that Hunta Ram and his wife were issueless. DW Jagdamba Parshad, Clerk, Food and Supplies, Ellenabad, had brought the original record of ration card in the name of Hunta Ram and Krishan has been reflected as son of Hunta Ram in the same. The name of some other persons have been shown on the ration card of Hunta Ram but those members were his brother Manphool and the wife, sons and daughters of said Manphool. Krishan has also been shown to be one of the family members of Hunta Ram and clearly mentioned as son of the head of the family, i.e. Hunta Ram. As Hunta Ram was elder brother of Manphool, he was head of the family and, therefore, ration card had been applied and issued in his name and the name of his adopted son Krishan mentioned as such, besides that of his brother and brother's family members. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that in case Krishan had been adopted by Hunta Ram, then Krishan ought to have R.S.A. No. 2992 of 2008 -4- claimed relief regarding the entire land measuring 68 Kanals 18 marlas when he filed Civil Suit No. 830-C of 1991 and not just half share. At the time when the aforementioned suit was filed by Krishan, Hunta Ram was alive as he died only on 25.6.1994. It was pleaded by Krishan in the said suit that there was a family settlement between him and his father (adoptive father) under which he had become owner of half share of the land measuring 68 kanals 18 marlas belonging to Hunta Ram and it was on that account that he filed the aforementioned suit, which was decreed on 5.12.1991 after Hunta Ram suffered a statement in favour of Krishan. The rest of the land was to devolve upon Krishan only after the death of his adoptive father and not before that. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Krishan had not been adopted by Hunta Ram or that there had been no family settlement between them. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. None of the substantial questions of law as claimed by the appellant arises for determination in the present second appeal. As the appeal is without any merit, it is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 07, 2009 JUDGE satish