R.S.A. No. 1377 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 1377 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 27.9.2010 Smt. Sunhari & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Rameshwar @ Ramesh & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellants. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The appellants/defendants have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which he dismissed their first appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent – Rameshwar @ Ramesh, for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to the half share of land measuring 62 Kanal 14 Marlas, situated in village Judglan and half share in agricultural land measuring 151 Kanal 13 Marlas, situated in the same village, being the only and the sole surviving legal heir of Ram Kala, who was the owner of that land. The plaintiff came up with the plea that he was born to Phulli Devi from the loins of Nihala on 22.3.1967. Immediately after the birth he was given in adoption by his natural parents to Ram Kala and his birth was got entered with Registrar of Births on 3.4.1967, wherein his father's name R.S.A. No. 1377 of 2010 (O&M) -2- was recorded as Ram Kala. That Ram Kala was living with his (plaintiff) natural parents till his death and after his death he became the owner of the land in dispute. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by defendants No. 1 to 4, whereas the same was admitted by defendants No. 6 to 10. Defendants No. 1 to 4 pleaded in their written statement that Ram Kala was the real brother of the father of the plaintiff and he was never given in adoption; nor he was ever adopted by Ram Kala. Ram Kala used to live separately and was on visiting terms with them and used to come to them for his day to day needs. They are the sons and daughters of Ram Chander and Nihala, brothers of Ram Kala, who had already died and, as such, they were to inherit the land in dispute being his legal heirs. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the ½ share of the suit property as mentioned in the headnote of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing present suit?OPD 6. Whether the court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain present suit?OPD R.S.A. No. 1377 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 7. Relief. To succeed in the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW5, Rajinder Kumar (PW1), Subhash Chander (PW2), Ramesh Chander Teacher (PW4), Phulli Devi and Chattar Singh (PW6). On the other hand, defendants examined Mahabir (DW1), Kitab Singh (DW2), Azad Singh (DW3), Ram Gopal (DW4). After going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly decreed the suit. The appeal was preferred by the defendants, which was dismissed, as afore-said. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff was adopted by Ram Kala is perverse, as the documents proved on the record, that the plaintiff was being described as son of his natural father Nihala, were brushed aside and were never taken into consideration. In the voters list Ex. D1 to D4, his father's name was shown as "Nihala" and even in school certificate, his father's name was initially recorded as 'Nihala', which was subsequently corrected as 'Ram Kala.' According to him, the substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- “whether the finding so recorded is perverse?” The documents so pointed out by learned counsel for the defendants/appellants were duly considered by both the lower Courts and the resultant effect of all the documents proved on the record was taken into R.S.A. No. 1377 of 2010 (O&M) -4- consideration. There is a statement of Phulli Devi, mother of the plaintiff. She categorically stated that the plaintiff was given in adoption by her and her husband to Ram Kala and was taken in adoption by Ram Kala immediately after his birth. It was during her cross-examination that it has come out that necessary ceremonies of adoption were got performed through Pandit. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve her statement. Concurrent finding of fact was recorded in favour of the plaintiff, on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence that he was adopted by Ram Kala. That finding does not suffer from any such perversity. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. September 27, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge