Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2007 Date of decision : March 09, 2010 Govind and others ....Appellants versus Bodan and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. S.N.Gaur, Advocate for Mr. H.P. Verma, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. PR Yadav, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 Respondents no. 2 to 4 exparte. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiffs no. 3 to 5 and proforma defendant no. 17. Suit was filed by Ram Niwas proforma respondent no. 20, Sultan since deceased and represented by proforma respondent nos. 22 to 26 and by appellants no. 1 to 3 against respondents no. 1 to 4 as contesting defendants no. 1 to 4 and against remaining respondents and appellant no. 4 as proforma defendants. It is undisputed before me by counsel for the parties that Toda and Likhma were brothers. Likhma had two sons Bakhta and Natha Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2007 -2- succeeded by the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. Toda also had two sons Jai Ram and Ram Dayal (hereinafter to be referred as Ram Dayal-I because another Ram Dayal is also there). Jai Ram died issueless. Ram Dayal-I had only one issue i.e. a son named Giyarsi. The dispute relates to inheritance of the estate of Ram Dayal-I. The plaintiffs' case is that Giyarsi was adopted by another Ram Dayal (hereinafter to be referred as Ram Dayal-II) adopted son of Bela resident of Rajasthan somewhere in the year 1930. Contesting defendants no. 1 to 5 are three sons, a daughter and widow of Giyarsi. According to the plaintiffs, since Giyarsi was adopted by Ram Dayal-II, therefore, neither Giyarsi nor defendants no. 1 to 5 could inherit the estate of Ram Dayal-I and the plaintiffs being nearest collaterals of Ram Dayal-I inherited his estate. Defendants no. 1 to 5 contested the suit and denied alleged adoption of Giyarsi by Ram Dayal-II. It was pleaded that Giyarsi was never given in adoption and therefore, Giyarsi inherited the estate of his natural father Ram Dayal-I and after death of Giyarsi, defendants no. 1 to 5 inherited the same and are therefore, owners in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh vide judgment and decree dated 21.5.2001 dismissed the suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs no. 3 to 5 and proforma defendant no. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2007 -3- Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that inheritance mutation Ex. P5 of Ram Dayal-II was sanctioned on 7.3.1938 in favour of Giyarsi. There is also voters list Ex. P2 of contesting defendants and their family members and ration card application Ex. P6 of contesting defendants and their family members in village Gandala of Rajasthan where Ram Dayal-II resided. However, these documents no where mention Giyarsi to be adopted son of Ram Dayal-II. Voters list Ex. P2 and ration card application Ex. P6 are of periods subsequent to death of Giyarsi. However, even in inheritance mutation Ex. P5 of Ram Dayal-II in favour of Giyarsi it has no where been mentioned that Giyarsi is adopted son of Ram Dayal-II. Consequently, mutation Ex. P5 would rather disprove the plea of the plaintiffs that Giyarsi was adopted son of Ram Dayal-II. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to Khatoni Ex. P7 wherein Giyarsi has been recorded to be adopted son of Ram Dayal-II. However, merely on the basis of this solitary document, it cannot be held that Giyarsi had been adopted by Ram Dayal-II. Admittedly, there is no other oral or documentary evidence of alleged adoption of Giyarsi by Ram Dayal-II. Oral evidence of hearsay regarding alleged adoption is not admissible. There is no ocular oral evidence of alleged adoption. There is also no documentary evidence of alleged adoption except Khatoni Ex. P7. On the other hand, in mutation Ex. D2 regarding inheritance of Giyarsi he has been mentioned to be son of Ram Dayal-I. This mutation was sanctioned on 14.1.1984 i.e. more than 5 years before the filing of the instant suit. It would also depict that Giyarsi had not been adopted by Ram Dayal-II. Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2007 -4- Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence and come to concurrent finding that adoption of Giyarsi by Ram Dayal-II is not proved. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner. The same is based on evidence on record which has been duly taken into consideration. The said finding would not give rise to a question of law much less substantial question of law even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that another view is also possible. I may hasten to add that from the evidence on record, the only reasonable possible view is that adoption of Giyarsi by Ram Dayal-II is not proved at all. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 09, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'