RSA No. 2373 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2373 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.9.2009 Hans Raj and others ......Appellants Versus Parshadi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri V.K. Bali, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The legal heirs of plaintiff-Ganeshi are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration challenging adoption deed dated 29.2.1988 (Exhibit DX), whereby Sunder adopted Hemvir son of Vedparkash son of Tikka Ram, brother of Sunder, was dismissed. Challenge was also to the Will dated 9.9.1985 executed by Sunder in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sons of Tikka Ram. The estate of Sunder is in dispute in the present suit. The plaintiffs claim to be heirs of Sunder by way of natural succession. The adoption in favour of grand son of Tikka Ram and Will in favour of the sons of Tikka Ram, was challenged by the plaintiff. RSA No. 2373 of 2008 (2) However, the controversy revolves around the adoption of Hemvir vide adoption deed dated 29.2.1988 by Sunder in the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that Sunder was about 80 years of age in the year 1988 when he allegedly adopted Hemvir. It is argued that one of the attesting witnesses to the adoption deed, namely, Fateh Singh, while appearing as DW3, has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know that who prepared his affidavit Exhibit DW3/A and what are the contents thereof. It is contended that the first Appellate Court has returned a finding that since the plaintiff has not cross-examined the said witness in respect of the contents of the affidavit, therefore, averments made by Fateh Singh in his affidavit, can be taken into consideration. The appellant has also highlighted the discrepancies in the statements of Ved Parkash regarding the time of adoption than that of the attesting witnesses. It is, thus, argued that the findings recorded are against the principles of law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and do not find any merit in the present appeal. There is no bar in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 that a person of 80 years of age cannot adopt. At that age, Sunder might have adopted a son for his salvation and/or for inheritance. The motive behind the adoption cannot be gone into by the Civil Court as it is in the mind of the person, who adopts a child. Though Fateh Singh DW3 has denied execution of an affidavit Exhibit DW3/A, but even if the said statement is excluded from consideration, another attesting witness DW-4 Girraj has supported the execution of adoption by Sunder. The discrepancies RSA No. 2373 of 2008 (3) as regards whether Sunder was married or not, are the minor discrepancies and the same cannot be made basis to return a finding that the process of attestation by Girraj is vitiated. Entire evidence has been considered by the Courts below to return a finding that Sunder adopted Hemvir vide deed Exhibit DX. It is a finding of fact. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 9.9.2009 ds