IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3461 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2011. Nand Kishor Sharma and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Attam Parkash and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. D.D.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.04.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide which the appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 15.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Rewari, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.3461 of 2011 Briefly stated, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief of possession on the plea that initially Hira Nand was owner of the property in dispute which was inherited by his sons Chandermani, Suryamani and Indermani. Suryamani died issueless. Smt. Janki Devi widow of Indermani also died on 23.09.1986. Dispute is regarding inheritance of Indermani. The present plaintiff is one of the daughters of Chandermani (husband’s brother of Smt. Janki Devi). On the other hand, respondent-defendant No.1 has come with the plea that he was adopted by Indermani and Smt.Janki Devi and that he being adopted son of Indermani and Janki Devi inherited the property left by Indermani and Janki Devi and that mutation was also sanctioned in his favour. Respondent- defendant No.1 sold part of the property in dispute in favour of respondents No.2 to 4 and they have claimed being owners in possession on the plea that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration as in the revenue record property was shown to be owned and possessed by respondent-defendant No.1 –Atam Parkash. Both the courts after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that Atam Parkash was validly adopted by Indermani and Janki Devi during lifetime of Indermani and hence, it was held that he alone is entitled to inherit the property left by Indermani and Janki Devi and sale deed executed by him in favour of respondents No.2 to 4 is also valid. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that it is a case of misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence by both the courts below. It is also contended that for a valid adoption the ceremony of giving and taking is essential and that even natural father of 2 RSA No.3461 of 2011 respondent-defendant No.1 has deposed that he had never given his son in adoption. It has also been contended that adoption is also not valid because at the time of execution of adoption deed respondent-defendant No.1 was more than 15 years of age. It is also contended that custom has also not been proved. He has also placed reliance upon Haryana State and others v. Jai Deep, 2011(3) PLR 580. Careful perusal of judgment passed by both the courts below shows that all these points have been duly dealt with by both the courts. Earlier as well, a suit was filed by Harihar Sharma, natural father of Atam Parkash, respondent-defendant No.1 and in that suit he has admitted that his son, respondent-defendant No.1 was given in adoption to Indermani and Janki Devi. The said suit was filed in the year 1991. The present suit has been filed by sister of Harihar Sharma, natural father of Atam Parkash. Plaintiff –Jageshwari Devi had also admitted in the cross-examination that she had filed the present suit at the instance of PW1, Harihar Sharma. All other witnesses examined by plaintiff are interested one as they are also belong to the same family and are brother and other children of Harihar Sharma, natural father of respondent-defendant No.1. On the other hand, sufficient documentary evidence has come on record to prove the alleged adoption. As per the revenue record, since the year 1988 Atam Parkash has been shown as adopted son of Janki Devi. In the voter list, Atam Parkash is shown as adopted son of Indermani and Janki Devi. Even Sarpanch of the village has also appeared and proved house tax receipts Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/7, wherein Atam Parkash is mentioned as son of Indermani. As per school record Atam Parkash has been shown as adopted son of Indermani. 3 RSA No.3461 of 2011 The school certificate is based on the school record where Atam Parkash studied from 01.08.1950 to 30.04.1955. The photographs Ex.DX placed on record have been duly proved wherein respondent-defendant No.1 is sitting in the lap of Smt.Janki Devi. The photograph was taken at the time when giving and taking ceremonies were performed. It has also been proved that Atam Parkash, respondent-defendant No.1 had performed last rites of Smt.Janki Devi. This fact has also been proved from the photograph as well as from the deposition of other witnesses. Even this fact has been admitted in the cross-examination of witnesses of present appellant-plaintiff. So far as custom is concerned, the same has also been discussed by the courts below. Various adoption deeds Ex.DW7/1 to Ex.DW7/12 have been placed on record and the same have been duly proved. Moreover, in this case though adoption deed was executed much later and however, adoption had taken place prior to 1950 and at that time respondent-defendant No.1 was handed over by his natural father Harihar Sharma to Indermani and Janki Devi. Thereafter, he was admitted in the school as son of Indermani as referred in the school record Ex.DW2/3. However, adoption deed was registered much later in the year 1974. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial 4 RSA No.3461 of 2011 question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 26, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 5