R.S.A. No. 4867 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.12.2009 (1) Regular Second Appeal No. 4867 of 2009 Sat Pal and others .. Appellants v. Labh Singh and others .. Respondents (2) Regular Second Appeal No. 4868 of 2009 Sat Pal and others .. Appellants v. Dharam Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common judgment of the learned court below. The facts have been extracted from Regular Second Appeal No. 4867 of 2009. The defendants are in appeal before this Court against the judgment of the learned court below, whereby the judgment of the learned trial court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that Mam Chand son of Kirpa son of Ghaseetu (since deceased) filed a suit praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4.12.1990 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Karnal in Civil Suit No. 1595 of 1990, titled as Satpal v. Mam Chand. It was claimed in the suit filed by Sat Pal that he had been adopted as son by deceased- Mam Chand on 15.4.1988 and in terms of the family settlement, he had become owner in possession of the property owned by deceased-Mam Chand. The suit was filed on 7.11.1990. It was decreed as consented on 4.12.1990. Immediately having come to know about the decree having been passed against him, deceased-Mam Chand challenged the same by filing the suit in question on 9.3.1991. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. R.S.A. No. 4867 of 2009 [2] However, the learned lower appellate court, while setting aside the judgment of the trial court, decreed the same. It is against this judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court that the defendants-appellants are before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that sufficient material was produced on record by the appellants to prove the fact that Sat Pal was adopted by deceased-Mam Chand. All the ceremonies were performed in the presence of witnesses. However, no documentation was made. As far as suit is concerned, after notice, deceased-Mam Chand himself appeared in the court, filed written statement and even got his statement recorded, which could not be disputed as there is presumption of truth with the record of the court. He further submitted that there were reasons for deceased-Mam Chand for adopting Satpal as his son, as he was not having any brother or sister and even being unmarried was not having any issue. His property was claimed by his other collateral of second or third degree after his death, who had got themselves impleaded as his legal representatives. The adoption of Sat Pal as his son by deceased- Mam Chand was on account of natural love and affection as the parties had earlier been dealing and living in the same village. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper book. The undisputed facts, which emerge from the record and also at the time of hearing of counsel for the appellants, are that date of birth of Sat Pal, who had claimed himself to be the adopted son of deceased- Mam Chand is 15.6.1982. The alleged date of adoption is 15.4.1988 and so is the date of family settlement, in terms of which the property of deceased- Mam Chand was to be transferred in the name of Sat Pal. Mam Chand owned 10 kanals and 4 marlas of land and some share in 8 kanals and 16 marlas of shamlat land. The fact stated by him in the suit filed challenging the earlier judgment and decree dated 4.12.1990 regarding the mortgage of the land owned by him with Kishan Chand, grand father of Sat Pal, is not in dispute. Though it is sought to be claimed that Sat Pal was adopted by deceased- Mam Chand on 15.4.1988, but still in the record with the school, where he was studying, he was mentioned as son of Balbir Singh and not adopted son of Mam Chand. Character certificate (Ex. P1) was proved on record to show that Sat Pal was got admitted in the school by his natural father- Balbir Singh under his signatures on 20.9.1997 much after his alleged adoption and also passing of decree confirming adoption which was challenged by Mam Chand in the present proceedings. Sat Pal passed Matriculation examination in the year 1999 from Haryana School Education Board. Even there in the record, his father's name is mentioned as Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh admittedly had his wife and three R.S.A. No. 4867 of 2009 [3] children, namely, two sons and a daughter. Record from the Food and Supplies Department was also produced where in the year 1998-99, ration card of Balbir Singh entered at Sr. No. 226 showed five family members. In the application for issuance of ration card proved on record (Ex. PW2/A), Sat Pal had been mentioned as son of Balbir Singh. This application was attested by Kasturi Devi Sarpanch and verified by Ravinder Singh Inspector. In the light of the aforesaid documentary evidence on record, vide which Sat Pal had miserably failed to prove his adoption by deceased-Mam Chand, no other issue practically survives as the question of family settlement would arise only in case there is adoption. Still further, there is no relation as such between the parties on the basis of which it could be claimed that the adoption was on account of natural love and affection. As against that, the allegations of the mortgage of the property by Mam Chand with the grand father of Sat Pal, are admitted. In view of this admitted fact, the contention of Mam Chand (deceased) that his signatures were obtained on blank papers to file written statement in court admitting the claim of Sat Pal and further his thumb impressions were taken by the Reader in the Court carry more weight. The aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that Mam Chand died immediately after filing of the suit and also as to what was the necessity to file the suit by Sat Pal against Mam Chand, when Mam Chand had to appear in the court and admit his claim. If no one was disputing the name of Sat Pal regarding his adoption, the material on record clearly leads to the conclusion that in fact thumb impressions of illiterate deceased-Mam Chand were obtained without disclosing him the purpose and the contents of the documents on which his thumb impressions were obtained, which resulting in passing of the judgment and decree against him on 4.12.1990. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court deserve re-consideration on any of the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants. The same are plain and simple findings of fact recorded on correct appreciation of the material and evidence on record giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.12.2009 mk