R.S.A. No. 658 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 658 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 Smt.Karamjeet Kaur …..Appellant Vs. Smt. Balbir Kaur and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. The plaintiff- appellant claiming to be the adoptive daughter of Hakam Singh had filed a suit for declaration that she is entitled to the entire property left by adoptive father Hakam Singh to the exclusion of his adoptive mother Balbir Kaur, defendant- respondent No.1 on the basis of an adoption deed dated December 28, 1992. The trial Court had partly R.S.A. No. 658 of 2011 (O&M) [2] decreed the suit of the plaintiff- appellant holding her to be owner of the complete land and restraining the defendant- respondents from dispossessing her from the suit land. The lower Appellate Court in an appeal filed by defendant- respondent has partly decreed the suit holding the plaintiff- appellant to be the owner to the extent of half share with right of joint possession in half share of the suit land. Counsel for the plaintiff- appellant has contended that as the adoption deed has been admitted and relied upon by the Courts below to determine the inheritance right of the plaintiff- appellant, the said document should be treated also to be a document conferring right upon the plaintiff- appellant to the entire share of deceased Hakam Singh. It is contended that the document if read carefully would indicate that it is like a Will bequeathing the entire property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant being adoptive daughter of Hakam Singh. Counsel for the appellant referred to the contents of the adoption deed wherein it is mentioned by Hakam Singh, adoptive father, that the plaintiff- appellant will be entitled to inherit his property as daughter and that she would reside with the adoptive father. In case of any other issue being born to the adoptive parents, she would enjoy the status of adoptive daughter and would be entitled to his moveable and immoveable property hasab hissa, i.e. as per share. Counsel for the appellant submits that the contents of the registered adoption deed should be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff would be entitled to inherit exclusively the entire moveable and immoveable property of Hakam Singh. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment in Mohammad Shaffi Vs. Tallai R.S.A. No. 658 of 2011 (O&M) [3] Ram and others, 1985 (1) PLR 142 in which the deed of adoption was the subject matter of interpretation by Division Bench. In the said case, one Rehmat Ali had adopted a son, he being unmarried having no other family member. He had expressed his intention in the adoption deed to bequeath the property in favour of his son by expressing intention in the document. The said document on interpretation was held to be a document purporting to be a document bequeathing property in favour of the adoptive son. The parties in the said case were Muslim. It was observed in the judgment that under Mohammedan law the adoption is not permitted. Besides this, the executor of the document did not have any other natural heir. The circumstances of the said case are absolutely different. Counsel has also placed reliance on Sher Singh Vs. Parsanni Devi and others, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 1. I have gone through the judgment in the said case. The question involved in Sher Singh’s case (supra) was whether the adoption deed can be treated as a testamentary disposition in favour of a person where adoption is held illegal. It was held in the said judgment that issue of treating an adoption deed to be testamentary disposition or gift would depend upon the recital, language used and circumstances surrounding the execution of such deed and for determining the same, one has to see the recital in the deed and the circumstances surrounding the execution thereof. Following the observations in the said judgment and applying the same to the present case and carefully going through the judgment of the Courts R.S.A. No. 658 of 2011 (O&M) [4] below and particularly the document of adoption, I am of the opinion that the document Ex.PW2/A has been believed to be an adoption deed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant but perusal of the recital of the document do not indicate that it intended to disinherit the wife of testator in the property left by him. The Will has to be established as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and all the suspicious circumstances, if existing, have to be explained by the propounder of the Will. In the present case, the document, if considered in context to the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act leaves it to doubt whether the testator who had an intention to adopt the plaintiff- appellant and to bequeath property in her favour after his death as per her share but it never meant to exclude the rights of the defendant- respondent No.1 Balbir Kaur, his wife. The rights of Balbir Kaur and Karamjeet Kaur in context to the document of adoption deed Ex.D2/A have been adjudicated upon by the lower Appellate Court holding that both of them will have share to the extent of half in the property left by Hakam Singh. No ground is made out for interfering in the finding of fact. Dismissed. February 7, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE