RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1413 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2009 Smt. Kamlesh and another ...........Appellants Versus Ran Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the Appellants. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Devi Ram filed a suit for declaration. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2003. The appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2.The brief facts of this case, relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal, are that Devi Ram appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff for brevity) instituted suit for seeking declaration against Ran Singh respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as defendant, for brevity) on the averments that he and RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M) 2 defendant are sons of Data Ram son of Ruda Ram. Ruda Ram had two sons namely Data Ram and Kishan Lal. Ran Singh was taken on adoption by Kishan Lal and hence defendant had no right to the property of his natural father Data Ram. It was averred that 2/7 share of land measuring 115 Kanals 11 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94 as detailed in the head of the plaint, was to be mutated in the name of plaintiff Devi Ram only and it was wrongly sanctioned in favour of defendant. He further pleaded that defendant had no concern with the suit land and plaintiff is in possession of the same. He came to know regarding the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant in the year 1996 and hence he filed the present suit being the sole heir of the property of deceased Data Ram. 3. On the other hand, defendant contested the suit and filed written statement wherein it was averred that he was adopted by his uncle Kishan Lal. He pleaded that on death of natural father Data Ram mutation no.115 dated 19.12.1950 was sanctioned in the revenue record on the statement made by plaintiff himself before Halqa Patwari and before sanctioning the said mutation the matter was verified by field Kanoongo on 23.1.1951. He pleaded that mutation was sanctioned before his adoption and he was taken in adoption by Kishan Lal after the death of Data Ram. Kishan Lal died in the year 1954. He pleaded that impugned mutation was rightly sanctioned in his name and he is in cultivating possession of the suit land to the knowledge of plaintiff, who was also aware of the said mutation since year RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M) 3 1951. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for?OPP 2.Whether the mutation no.115 attested on 20.3.1951, is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff, if so to what effect?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiffs has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred?OPD 5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff has not made properly parties?OPD 7.Whether the plaintiff has filed only simple suit for declaration without consequential relief, if so to what effect ?OPD 8.Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs?OPD 9.Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was the sole owner of the suit property left by deceased Data Ram as defendant had been adopted by Kishan Lal during the life time of Data Ram. Plaintiff,however, could not establish on record that defendant had been adopted by his uncle Kishan Lal during the life time of his father Data Ram. In case the defendant had been adopted during the life time of Data Ram then naturally RSA No.1413 of 2009 (O&M) 4 plaintiff alone would be entitled to inherit the property left by Data Ram. However, in case defendant was adopted by Kishan Lal after the death of Data Ram then both the plaintiff and defendant would be entitled to inherit the property of Data Ram being his sons. Succession does not stand in abeyance and hence, on the death of Data Ram his succession qua his property opened. Admittedly, adoption deed was executed on 7.1.1951. The learned Additional District Judge has observed in the judgment that in Exhibit D1 adoption deed, it was mentioned that ceremonies essential for adoption had been performed a month prior to the execution of the deed. Mutation was entered by Halqa Patwari. Thereafter, the mutation was sanctioned on 20.3.1951. It has further been observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff himself had admitted that Data Ram had died somewhere in the end of year 1947 or in the beginning of year 1948. In these circumstances, the fact that defendant had been adopted by his uncle after death of Data Ram, lost its significance so far as inheritance qua the property of Data Ram is concerned. Both the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 07, 2009 arya