CR No. 5401 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5401 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.11.2011 Surjit Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Smt. Karnail Kaur ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The order dated 19.4.2011 passed by the trial court has been impugned in this revision petition whereby an application for impleading legal representatives of deceased Manpreet Singh, was declined. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the petition are that Manpreet Singh (Minor) had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction through his guardian Surjit Singh-petitioner against Smt. Karnail Kaur-respondent to the effect that he was adopted son of Harbans Singh and was entitled to inherit suit property measuring 21 kanals 16 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Gorsian, Tehsil and District Ambala on the basis of Will dated 2.3.2003. Said Harbans Singh was killed on 1.5.2003 by the brother and brother-in-law of the respondent. Manpreet Singh died on 3.8.2008 and the petitioner filed an application on 10.9.2008 for CR No. 5401 of 2011 -2- impleading him as legal representative being his natural father. The said application was contested by the respondent by filing reply. The trial court vide order dated 19.4.2011 dismissed the application as well as suit having been rendered infructuous. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The trial court while rejecting the application came to the conclusion that Manpreet Singh minor was adopted by Harbans Singh son of Late Ajmer Singh and had, thus, become part of the adopted family. In such a situation, the applicants who were the natural father, mother and uncle of Manpreet Singh could not be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Manpreet Singh. The observations recorded by the trial court while rejecting the said application are as under:- “The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that Manpreet Singh was adopted by the defendant and her husband Sh. Harbans Singh as per Hindu rites and customs. Said Manpreet Singh had died on 3.8.2008 and the present applicants are his legal heirs being in the natural relationship. This contention has been vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/defendant on the ground that his natural father, mother or uncles have no right to claim themselves to be the LRs of the deceased. The deceased has left no legal heir and as such the applicants cannot be impleaded. After having rival CR No. 5401 of 2011 -3- contentions, it is clear that factum of death of Manpreet Singh is not disproved. The relief claimed by said Manpreet Singh (since deceased) was based upon his being the adopted son of defendant and her husband Harbans Singh. The applicants are claiming themselves to be natural father, mother and uncles of Manpreet Singh. It is pertinent to mention that if the contention of the plaintiff about being the adopted child is taken as true as was the case of the plaintiff himself, then it is a settled proposition of law that after adoption all the natural ties are severed and the natural parents cannot claim their right over the child thereafter. In the case in hand, no cause of action accrues to the present applicants as it is their own contention that said Manpreet Singh was already given in adoption to the defendant and her husband. Hence, they cannot be the legal representatives of deceased Manpreet Singh.” 5. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. November 15, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE