R.S.A No. 1265 of 2005(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No. 5871-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 1265 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : September 11, 2009 Suraj Bhan ...... Appellant (s) v. Suresh Kumar and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 8. Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.9, 10 and 11A. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M.No.5871-C of 2008 This application has been filed claiming that the applicants are entitled to inherit the interest of Chatter Singh. I find that Chatter Singh was duly impleaded as a party in the civil suit. However, he was not a party either before the lower appellate Court or even before this Court. In the circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to allow this application. Consequently, this application is dismissed. The parties are at liberty to R.S.A No. 1265 of 2005(O&M) ::2:: agitate their claims with respect to Chatter Singh independently. R.S.A No.1265 of 2005 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby holding that Sunda Ram was entitled to inherit the share of his brother Udmi Ram along with other brothers since Udmi Ram had died issueless. The appellant claims to have been adopted by Udmi Ram. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the learned appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, in the circumstances wherein the plaintiffs challenging the adoption deed did not produce it ? ii) Whether the learned appellate Court was right in holding that the defendant is asserting adoption and onus was upon him to produce the adoption deed ? iii) Whether defendants/respondents had locus standi to claim succession in the presence of adopted son and wife ?” It would be seen that the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was for the plaintiff to have produced the adoption deed on record. The lower appellate Court rightly held that since it was the appellant who was seeking inheritance by way of adoption deed, it was incumbent upon him to produce the adoption deed and that not having been done, the adoption could not have been proved. In the circumstances, questions No. (i) and (ii) have to be held against the appellant. Once questions No.(i) and (ii) are held against the appellant, question No. (iii) does not arise. R.S.A No. 1265 of 2005(O&M) ::3:: Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 10, 2009. JUDGE `kk'