Case: Kehar Singh &amp; Ors Vs. Dewan Singh &amp; Ors

acquire a right to succeed to the collateral of the adoptive father, and in Indar Singh v. Mt. Gurdevi, AIR 1930 Lah 897 (Amritsar Jats), it was held that he was not a lineal descendant of the adoptive father within the meaning of S. 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. XVI of 1887. Conversely, the appointed heir retains the right of collateral succession in his natural family. See Jagat Singh v. Ishar Singh, ILR 11 Lah 615: (AIR 1930 Lah 700 (2) (Amritsar Jats). On the other hand, according to the custom of Jats in the Amritsar District, in a case of a formal adoption effecting a complete transplantation of the adopted son in the adoptive fathers family, the adopted son is entitled to inherit collaterally in the adoptive fathers family. See Teju v. Kesar Singh, AIR 1954 Punj 30, affirming the decision of Kapur, J. in Teja Singh v. Kesar Singh, AIR 1951 Punj 117.9. We thus find that under the customary law of Jats in Amritsar District, where the customary adoption is formal and the adopted son is completely transplanted in the family of his adoptive father, he is entitled to succeed to the collateral relatives of the adoptive father. This finding is in harmony with the Riwaj-i-am of the Amritsar District, is supported by judicial decisions, and is not in conflict with Art. 49 of Rattigans Digest. On the other hand, if the customary adoption amounts to a mere appointment of an heir, the appointment heir is not entitled to succeed to the collateral relatives of the adoptive father. This finding is in harmony with Art. 49 of Rattigans Digest and the judicial decisions, and is consistent with the Riwaj-i-ams properly interpreted in the light of the decided cases.10. In AIR 1951 Punj 117, it was said that the ordinary rule in Amritsar District is that the adoption is complete. In other cases, it was said that ordinarily such an adoption is by way of a customary appointment of an heir.The true rule appears to be that it is a question of fact in each case whether the adoption by a Jat in the Amritsar District is formal or informal. The adoption is formal if the parties manifest a clear intention that there should be a complete change of the family of the adopted son, so that he ceases to be a member of his natural family and loses his right of collateral succession in that family and at the same time becomes a member of the adoptive fathers family and acquires a right of collateral succession in the family. The loss of the right of collateral succession in the natural family is strong evidence to show that the adoption is formal and effects a complete change in the family. On the other hand, retention of the right of collateral succession in his natural family indicates that the adoption was informal by way of customary appointment of an heir.11. The onus is upon the plaintiffs-respondents to prove that the adoption of Kala Singh was formal and effected a complete change in his family. ON the death of the adoptive father Megh Singh, Kala Singh inherited the properties of Megh Singh, and on the death of Kala Singh, his sons, Gian Singh and Dewan Singh, inherited those properties. But these successions are consistent with the informal appointment of Kala Singh as an heir to Megh Singh. According to custom, the appointed heir succeeds to the properties left by the adoptive father, and on the death of the appointed heir, his male issue succeed, see Rattigans Digest of Customary Law,13th Edn., Arts. 52 and 54, pp. 572-573. The succession of Kala Singh as the reversionary heir of one Mst. Bhagan is cited as an illustration of collateral succession of the adopted son in his adoptive fathers family in the list of mutations given in Sch. I of the Riwaj-i-am of 1940 (Exhibit P.C./1). But the oral testimony on the record of this case discloses that Mst. Bhagan, who was the widow of a predeceased son of Megh Singh, was given some land by Megh Singh for her maintenance, and on her death, Kala Singh succeeded to this land. It will appear, therefore, that Mst. Bhagan got a lift estate in this land, and on her death, the land reverted to Kala Singh as the adopted son of Megh Singh. The succession of Kala Singh of this land is, therefore, not an instance of collateral succession of Kala Singh in his adoptive fathers family, and this was fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondents. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court concurrently found that the adoption of Kala Singh was by way of customary appointment of an heir to Megh Singh. On second appeal, the High Court did not interfere with this finding. The finding is amply supported by the materials on the record. It appears that after his adoption Kala Singh succeeded to the lands left by on Makhan, his natural brother and by one Hira Singh, his collateral in his natural family. These collateral successions in the natural family strongly indicate that the adoption of Kala Singh did not effect a change in his family. The adoption of Kala Singh was no more than a mere appointment of an heir and by the custom of the Jats in the District of Amritsar he was not entitled to succeed collaterally in his adoptive fathers family. For this reason, the suit out of which this appeal arises, must be dismissed.12. The District Judge, relying on 61 Pun Re 1894, held that as Kala Singh was not an agnate of his adoptive father, he was not entitled to succeed collaterally in his adoptive fathers, even assuming that his adoption was valid. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the High Court at all. In view of our conclusions on other points, we do not express any opinion on this point.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. In agreement with the High Court we hold that it is not open to the defendants to contend that the adoption of Kala Singh by Megh Singh was invalid. In the written statement, the defendants did not allege that Megh Singh had no power to adopt Kala Singh, as Kala Singh was the daughters son of Megh Singh. As the validity of the adoption was not in issue, the parties had no opportunity to lead any evidence on the question whether by the special custom of the parties Megh Singh could lawfully adopt his daughters son.We thus find that under the customary law of Jats in Amritsar District, where the customary adoption is formal and the adopted son is completely transplanted in the family of his adoptive father, he is entitled to succeed to the collateral relatives of the adoptive father. This finding is in harmony with the Riwaj-i-am of the Amritsar District, is supported by judicial decisions, and is not in conflict with Art. 49 of Rattigans Digest. On the other hand, if the customary adoption amounts to a mere appointment of an heir, the appointment heir is not entitled to succeed to the collateral relatives of the adoptive father. This finding is in harmony with Art. 49 of Rattigans Digest and the judicial decisions, and is consistent with the Riwaj-i-ams properly interpreted in the light of the decided cases.10. In AIR 1951 Punj 117, it was said that the ordinary rule in Amritsar District is that the adoption is complete. In other cases, it was said that ordinarily such an adoption is by way of a customary appointment of an heir.The true rule appears to be that it is a question of fact in each case whether the adoption by a Jat in the Amritsar District is formal or informal. The adoption is formal if the parties manifest a clear intention that there should be a complete change of the family of the adopted son, so that he ceases to be a member of his natural family and loses his right of collateral succession in that family and at the same time becomes a member of the adoptive fathers family and acquires a right of collateral succession in the family. The loss of the right of collateral succession in the natural family is strong evidence to show that the adoption is formal and effects a complete change in the family. On the other hand, retention of the right of collateral succession in his natural family indicates that the adoption was informal by way of customary appointment of an heir.11. The onus is upon the plaintiffs-respondents to prove that the adoption of Kala Singh was formal and effected a complete change in his family. ON the death of the adoptive father Megh Singh, Kala Singh inherited the properties of Megh Singh, and on the death of Kala Singh, his sons, Gian Singh and Dewan Singh, inherited those properties. But these successions are consistent with the informal appointment of Kala Singh as an heir to Megh Singh. According to custom, the appointed heir succeeds to the properties left by the adoptive father, and on the death of the appointed heir, his male issue succeed, see Rattigans Digest of Customary Law,13th Edn., Arts. 52 and 54, pp. 572-573. The succession of Kala Singh as the reversionary heir of one Mst. Bhagan is cited as an illustration of collateral succession of the adopted son in his adoptive fathers family in the list of mutations given in Sch. I of the Riwaj-i-am of 1940 (Exhibit P.C./1). But the oral testimony on the record of this case discloses that Mst. Bhagan, who was the widow of a predeceased son of Megh Singh, was given some land by Megh Singh for her maintenance, and on her death, Kala Singh succeeded to this land. It will appear, therefore, that Mst. Bhagan got a lift estate in this land, and on her death, the land reverted to Kala Singh as the adopted son of Megh Singh. The succession of Kala Singh of this land is, therefore, not an instance of collateral succession of Kala Singh in his adoptive fathers family, and this was fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondents. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court concurrently found that the adoption of Kala Singh was by way of customary appointment of an heir to Megh Singh. On second appeal, the High Court did not interfere with this finding. The finding is amply supported by the materials on the record. It appears that after his adoption Kala Singh succeeded to the lands left by on Makhan, his natural brother and by one Hira Singh, his collateral in his natural family. These collateral successions in the natural family strongly indicate that the adoption of Kala Singh did not effect a change in his family. The adoption of Kala Singh was no more than a mere appointment of an heir and by the custom of the Jats in the District of Amritsar he was not entitled to succeed collaterally in his adoptive fathers family. For this reason, the suit out of which this appeal arises, must be dismissed.12. The District Judge, relying on 61 Pun Re 1894, held that as Kala Singh was not an agnate of his adoptive father, he was not entitled to succeed collaterally in his adoptive fathers, even assuming that his adoption was valid. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the High Court at all. In view of our conclusions on other points, we do not express any opinion on this point.The relevant judicial decisions may be briefly noticed. In Jowala Singh v. Mt. Lachmi, 14 Pun Re 1884 (Gil Jats of Tahsil Ajnala, Amritsar), Mangal Singh v. Tilok Singh, 61 Pun Re 1894 (Sohel Jats of Tahsil Anjala, Amritsar), (Chitu v. Jawand Singh, 107 Pun Re 1913 (Sikh Jats of Tahsil Tarn Taran, Amritsar), it was held that an heir appointed under the customary law of Jats in the District of Amritsar does not acquire a right to succeed to the collateral of the adoptive father, and in Indar Singh v. Mt. Gurdevi, AIR 1930 Lah 897 (Amritsar Jats), it was held that he was not a lineal descendant of the adoptive father within the meaning of S. 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. XVI of 1887. Conversely, the appointed heir retains the right of collateral succession in his natural family. See Jagat Singh v. Ishar Singh, ILR 11 Lah 615: (AIR 1930 Lah 700 (2) (Amritsar Jats). On the other hand, according to the custom of Jats in the Amritsar District, in a case of a formal adoption effecting a complete transplantation of the adopted son in the adoptive fathers family, the adopted son is entitled to inherit collaterally in the adoptive fathers family. See Teju v. Kesar Singh, AIR 1954 Punj 30, affirming the decision of Kapur, J. in Teja Singh v. Kesar Singh, AIR 1951 Punj 117.