RSA No. 1213 of 1983 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1213 of 1983 Date of Decision: October 21, 2009 Ram Kishore ...... Appellant Versus Jai Parkash and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Vaneet Soni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that he inherited 1/3rd share in the property of Ruli Ram. Both the courts on facts held that the appellant had been adopted by his maternal uncle Lekh Raj since he had no son and that, therefore, the appellant severed all ties with his natural family and was integrated in the adoptive family. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below have completely misread the evidence led by he RSA No. 1213 of 1983 2 plaintiff/appellant while holding the plaintiff/appellant as adopted son of Lekh Raj on the basis of oral evidence led by the defendant/respondent? ii)Whether the properties acquired from the income generated from ancestral business could be termed as joint Hindu Family Property? iii)Whether the findings given by learned lower appellate court is perverse especially when it is settled law that the properties purchased from the income from the business which came through inheritance is also a joint family property? iv)Whether the will is to be proved as per procedure provided under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act? Learned counsel for the appellant has argued only question No. (i). The main thrust of learned counsel to justify the allegation of misreading is that all the certificates of the appellant describe him as the son of Ruli Ram and further that the mother of the appellant had also denied having given him in adoption to her brother. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, argued that both these facts have been considered by the courts below but on an over all view of the evidence the courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellant was adopted by Lekh Raj. I have gone through the findings of the courts below and find that this is indeed so. It is not the case that these pieces of evidence have not been considered. They have been considered but the evidence to the contrary effect has been believed. Learned counsel has has not been able to RSA No. 1213 of 1983 3 persuade me that the finding returned on the issue of adoption is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In the circumstances this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 21, 2009 sunita