R.S.A.No.3778 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3778 of 2008 Date of Decision : 24.7.2009 Amar Singh ...Appellant Versus Veer Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration that the plaintiff has share in the property of Antu Ram as his son, was dismissed. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the property in the hands Antu Ram was a coparcenary property and, therefore, he has a share in the aforesaid property as his son. The said suit has been dismissed on the ground that in fact the plaintiff was adopted by his maternal grand- mother and that fact is evident from the plaint dated 13.6.1983 (Ex.D8) filed by Amar Singh, the present appellant. In view of admission of the plaintiff, in the aforesaid previous suit, it was held that the plaintiff is a member of joint Hindu family constituted by the parties to that suit, therefore, the plaintiff has no right in the estate of Antu Ram. R.S.A.No.3778 of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Section 12 of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, to contend that the property which vested with a person will vest with him irrespective of the adoption subsequently. However, the said argument is not available to the appellant, as the share in the coparcenary property is to be determined when the property sought to be partitioned. On the date of adoption, the plaintiff may be a member of the coparcenary property, but with subsequent adoption, he lost his right in the coparcenary property, as he ceases to be member of the coparcenary. In view of the said fact, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 24.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE