In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 25, 2009 Mandip Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. Sandeep Kaur and others .. Respondents Civil Revision No.175 of 2009 (O&M) Bhupinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Sandeep Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioners vide two revision petition Nos.7027 of 2008 and 175 of 2009, one filed by Mandip Singh and other by Bhupinder Singh, have invoked the extra ordinary supervisory powers of this Court while challenging the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Samrala, whereby the court allowed Sandeep Kaur, allegedly adopted daughter of Surjit Kaur, to defend the suit pending before the court since 13.11.1996. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner Bhupinder Singh has three brothers namely Rajinder Singh, Harinder Singh and Surmukh Singh. Harinder Singh was stated as unmarried. Rajinder Singh was also unmarried. He died on 16.7.1995. He had allegedly executed a Will dated 26.4.1995, bequeathing his share in the property in the names of his nephews i.e. sons of Surmukh Singh and Bhupinder Singh. On the death of Rajinder Singh, as per his Will, his estate could be mutated Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2008 & Civil Revision No.175 of 2009 -2- in favour of his nephews but one Surjit Kaur surfaced and claimed herself to be widow of Rajinder Singh and got the mutation sanctioned in her favour. Tejinder Singh etc. nephews of Rajinder Singh filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be the owners of the share of Rajinder Singh. They also pleaded that Surjit Kaur is not the wife of Rajinder Singh. They also obtained temporary injunction restraining Surjit Kaur from alienating the property. However, despite the issuance of injunction, the property was sold by Surjit Kaur through her alleged general power of attorney Mohan Singh son of Kalyan Singh in favour of defendants No.6 to 9. The said transfer was also challenged. In the meanwhile, Surjit Kaur appeared before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Samrala and made statement to the effect that she is not the wife of late Rajinder Singh and also compromised vide document Ex.C-1 relinquishing all her claims against the plaintiff. Surjit Kaur died on 30.10.2002. Thereafter, in the year 2008, after all the evidence in the case has been led, Sandeep Kaur (now respondent) appeared and applied for impleading herself as necessary party to the suit claiming herself to be the adopted daughter of Surjit Kaur. The application was replied by the plaintiffs wherein they denied if she is the daughter of Surjit Kaur and stated that the application has been filed at the instance of Mohan Singh son of Kalyan Singh resident of village Powat (who got his statement recorded on 15.5.2006). Mohan Singh and defendants No.6 to 9 in connivance with each other are introducing Sandeep Kaur for extraneous reasons and putting pressure upon the plaintiffs to submit to the unwarranted demand to withdraw the suit. Earlier Sandeep Kaur moved application to the police authorities Khanna which was registered at No.238/Peshi dated 28.2.2004, regarding murder of Surjit Kaur, wherein the complaint was found to be frivolous and mala-fide. Again a similar complaint No.2386/Peshi dated 31.8.2007 was filed by Sandeep Kaur against plaintiff and their father which was also enquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), Khanna and found to be false vide report dated 19.12.2007. It was also submitted that there is no woman in the name of Surjit Kaur widow of Rajinder Singh of village Powat, but, she is actually wife of Karnail Singh resident of village Lakhanpur, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib. She while making the statement and Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2008 & Civil Revision No.175 of 2009 -3- proving the compromise Ex.C-1 stated on oath that she was not the wife of Rajinder Singh, but is wife of Karnail Singh. While levelling serious allegations against Mohan Singh, it is stated that introduction of Sandeep Kaur is the brain child of Mohan Singh. Surjit Kaur neither adopted Sandeep Kaur of village Powat nor there was any question of making any such adoption. The alleged adoption deed dated 5.8.1999 being relied upon by the defendant Sandeep Kaur is fake, frivolous and fraudulent document and is creation of mischievous mind of Mohan Singh, who is a dismissed Revenue Patwari on the ground of misconduct and also has a criminal background. Several criminal cases including case under Section 302 IPC were registered against him and he is a professional witness. Sandeep Kaur is not in any way related to Surjit Kaur. She is not even the daughter of Baljinder Singh son of Hari Singh as alleged by her. Family of Baljinder Singh is inimical towards late Rajinder Singh son of Randhir Singh. It is also reported that the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Samrala granted many adjournments to Mohan Singh for producing Surjit Kaur, but he failed to produce her. Now he has played this tactics to introduce Sandeep Kaur. After considering arguments, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Samrala, has allowed the application, consequently, she was impleaded being necessary party to the suit without examining the following facts :- 1. Though Surjit Kaur was missing since 9.2.2001, Sandeep Kaur never came forward to contest the suit for 7 years and moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC after the plaintiffs and other defendants had led evidence. 2. She did not prefer to move application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for impleading her as legal representative of Surjit Kaur. 3. Though, in the year 2001, Surjit Kaur had effected compromise Ex.C-1 and made the statement relinquishing all her claims and admitting that she is not the wife of Rajinder Singh, and is the wife of one Karnail Singh resident of village Lakhanpur, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2008 & Civil Revision No.175 of 2009 -4- Sahib but Sandeep Kaur did not challenge this compromise at all. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and having scrutinized the impugned order, it transpires that Sandeep Kaur is an instrument at the hands of some unscrupulous persons to apply for being impleaded as party. Even prima facie she does not appear to be adopted daughter of Rajinder Singh and Surjit Kaur so as to continue with the suit. In this regard, it may be observed that though Surjit Kaur either was missing since 9.2.2001 or was murdered, Sandeep Kaur never informed the court about that and remained silent for 7 years. Though, Surjit Kaur allegedly wife of Rajinder Singh had confessed vide compromise Ex.C-1 that she is not the wife of Rajinder Singh and she is the wife of Karnail Singh; this compromise was never challenged for 7 years by Sandeep Kaur and abruptly when the case was at its fag end, the application was moved by Sandeep Kaur. Copy of the ration card produced by the plaintiffs reveals that Rajinder Singh was the member of the family of Surmukh Singh. Copies of the voter list for the years 1979, 1988, 1990 and 1995 also reveal that Surjit Kaur is the wife of Karnail Singh and not of Rajinder Singh. Sandeep Kaur has also not asserted that Surjit Kaur did not make any such statement in the court. Copy of the death certificate pertaining to Surjit Kaur also indicates that she was wife of Karnail Singh and died on 30.10.2002. Investigation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), Khanna dated 19.12.2007 also reveals that Surjit Kaur representing herself to be wife of Rajinder Singh was actually wife of Karnail Singh and Sandeep Kaur was also instrumented by Mohan Singh to have revenge against the plaintiffs. Now coming to the question whether Sandeep Kaur is prima facie adopted daughter of Rajinder Singh. The adoption deed placed on record reveals that she was adopted by Surjit Kaur and Rajinder Singh some time earlier, but no date of adoption has been given. It is not mentioned whether she alone had adopted Sandeep Kaur or she along with Rajinder Singh had adopted her. In case Rajinder Singh was alive at the time of adoption, then his consent was also essential along with consent of the Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2008 & Civil Revision No.175 of 2009 -5- parents of Sandeep Kaur. But, it is also not mentioned if parents of Sandeep Kaur also agreed to hand over Sandeep Kaur to Surjit Kaur and Rajinder Singh. In such situation, the alleged consent given by Karmjeet Kaur (mother of Sandeep Kaur) on 5.8.1993 is of no consequence, but the necessary essentials to prove the adoption were to prove the ceremonies of giving and taking of Sandeep Kaur in adoption when it was actually taken. The person having no semblance of right, title or interest and without prima facie showing his relationship with the deceased could come to contend that he had a right to continue with the suit claiming himself/herself to be the heir or legatee under the Will of the deceased. The adoption deed (Annexure R-2) executed on 5.8.1999 does not disclose the date when she was adopted. Notwithstanding the fact that actual date of adoption has not been disclosed, no document since the date of oral adoption till the execution of the deed, has been brought on record in order to prima facie show if Sandeep Kaur was ever treated, dealt with, identified, recognized or accepted as daughter of Surjit Kaur and Rajinder Singh. What to talk of her recognition prior to the adoption deed, she has not been recognized as such even after the adoption deed till the filing of the application. The matriculation certificate (Annexure R-3) issued by the Punjab School Education Board, in the month of June, 2005 does not reveal if she is daughter of Surjit Kaur and Rajinder Singh but father's name is recorded as Baljinder Singh and mother's name is recorded as Karmjeet Kaur. Voter Identity card (Annexure R-4) issued on 24.11.2006, ration card (Annexure R-5) issued on 27.5.2007 also reveal the same fact and she is no where recorded as adopted daughter of Surjit Kaur and Rajinder Singh. No revenue record has been placed on record to indicate if Sandeep Kaur inherited the property of Surjit Kaur being her adopted daughter. The respondent Sandeep Kaur in order to claim the right to contest (at the fag end of the suit) the suit after its pendency for 12 years, must have come with clean hands and prima facie establish if she is really adopted daughter of Surjit Kaur. Even adoption deed does not satisfy the essentials for completing the adoption, as such, Sandeep Kaur cannot be allowed to be impleaded as party to the suit. Even otherwise, there are other defendants to contest the suit. Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2008 & Civil Revision No.175 of 2009 -6- Resultantly, the order passed by the trial court impleading Sandeep Kaur as party-defendant at this fag end of the suit, particularly when she knew fully well about the pendency of the suit and she intentionally did not apply for impleading herself as legal representative or a party-defendant also goes a long way to prove the mala-fides of the respondent. Consequently, the impugned order being perverse, arbitrary and against the facts deserves to be interfered with. As such, the revision petitions are allowed, impugned order is set aside and the application moved by Sandeep Kaur is dismissed. August 25, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge