Case: Inder Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh

is not a correct statement of the law, the statement there being that the two elements which are essential to constitute the factum of adoption are (i) an intention to appoint an heir and (ii) an act of association (see p. 497). We consider that it is unnecessary in this case to examine the more general question of the exact scope and ambit of the rule in other parts of the Punjab; for we have unimpeachable evidence of the scope of the rule in the district of Ludhiana. In the Customary Law of the Ludhiana District (rewaj-i-am), compiled and attested by J. M. Dunnett, Settlement Officer, the formalities of customary adoption amongst Jats of the Ludhiana district are stated in the form of the following question and answer (see p. 102) :"Question 68. What formalities are necessary for adoption ?Answer-As adoption is not a religious ceremony, no special formalities are considered necessary. The adopter usually calls the neighbours and his relations together, and distributes gur, saying that he has adopted (god lia) so and so. Sometimes a deed of adoption is executed. But a declaration of adoption and general treatment as a son are looked upon as sufficient."The compiler then observes :"Case-law agrees. It is well established principle that customary adoption requires absolutely no formalities. The evidence required to establish the factum of adoption is merely evidence of intention clearly expressed and treatment shown.In 79 Pun Re 1882 (Jats of Manza Baga Kalan tahsil Samrala) the execution of a deed and general conduct were held sufficient, but in 94 Pun Re 1893, among Dhaliwal Jats, the mere execution of a deed unaccompanied by precedent or subsequent treatment was held insufficient."8. Mr. Achhru Ram has very fairly conceded that the statement of customary law of the Ludhiana district in the rewaj-i-am is authoritative, though the many details mentioned in the answers given are not necessarily mandatory.It is clear, however that so far as the Jats of Ludhiana district are concerned the formalities necessary for adoption are, firstly, a declaration of adoption and, secondly, general treatment of the appointed heir as a son. A mere declaration or even the execution of a deed of adoption unaccompanied by precedent or subsequent treatment is insufficient. That being the position, the High Court was clearly right in its decision.9. The same position is established by the authorities hearing on the subject The earliest decision to which our attention has been drawn is Gurbachna v. Bujha, 42 Pun Re 1911, p. 151. In that case it was stated that where the power of customary adoption by a sonless proprietor was not disputed, all that was necessary to constitute an adoption was the clear expression of an intention on the part of the adoptive father to adopt the boy concerned as his son and a sufficient manifestation of that intention by the execution and registration of a deed of adoption coupled with a clear declaration in Court and subsequent treatment as adopted son. It was pointed out, however, that in a case where soon after the execution of the deed of adoption the reversioners of the adoptive father brought a suit, it was not reasonable to demand proof of subsequent treatment.In the case before us, Nathu cried three years after the execution of the deed. He left Inder Singh a few weeks after the execution of the deed, cancelled the creed within about five months and instead of treating Inder Singh as his son repudiated any such association with him. In these circumstances the High Court lightly held that there was no sufficient manifestation of the intention to adopt; Inder Singh as his son by Nathu.In Baj Singh v. Partap Singh 77 Ind Cas 473: (AIR 1923 Lah 497 (2) ), it was observed :"There is ample authority for holding that the appointment in order to be valid must be made in some unequivocal and customary manner and the execution of a deed coupled with a long course of treatment has always been recognised as one of the modes of manifesting such an appointment."In Chhajju v. Mehr Singh, : 31 Pun LR 997: (AIR 1930 Lah 1072), it was held that the execution of a deed by the adoptive father was not enough and continuous subsequent treatment not having been proved, the adoption was not established. In Chanan Singh v. Buta Singh. AIR 1935 Lah 83 the decision proceeded on the customary law of the district of Jullundur and on that basis it was held that the appointment should be manifested by some declaration or course of treatment evidencing an unequivocal intention to appoint a specified person as heir; it was pointed out that the question and answer recorded in the rewaj-i-am concerned showed that the essence of the customary rule was that it should be clearly declared. Their Lordships were dealing with a case in which there was not merely a public declaration in Court but also subsequent treatment of the appointed heir as a son by the adoptive father. In Kishan Singh Taru, (AIR 1949 EP 342), it was observed that all that was necessary to constitute an adoption under customary law was the clear expression of intention on the adoptive fathers part to adopt the boy concerned as his son and the execution of the deed of adoption coupled with a clear declaration before a registering officer and continuous subsequent treatment as adopted son were sufficient manifestation of the intention.10. We are of the view that the High Court rightly held that in the circumstances of this case the declaration made by Nathu before the village Panchayat on March 24, 1946 and the execution of a deed of adoption which he cancelled within a short time were not a sufficient manifestation of the intention of Nathu to adopt Inder Singh as his son. There was no evidence that Nathu Singh treated Inder Singh as his son; on the contrary, there was evidence to show that he repudiated the declaration that he had earlier made.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We consider that it is unnecessary in this case to examine the more general question of the exact scope and ambit of the rule in other parts of the Punjab; for we have unimpeachable evidence of the scope of the rule in the district ofis clear, however that so far as the Jats of Ludhiana district are concerned the formalities necessary for adoption are, firstly, a declaration of adoption and, secondly, general treatment of the appointed heir as a son. A mere declaration or even the execution of a deed of adoption unaccompanied by precedent or subsequent treatment is insufficient. That being the position, the High Court was clearly right in itsthe case before us, Nathu cried three years after the execution of the deed. He left Inder Singh a few weeks after the execution of the deed, cancelled the creed within about five months and instead of treating Inder Singh as his son repudiated any such association with him. In these circumstances the High Court lightly held that there was no sufficient manifestation of the intention to adopt; Inder Singh as his son by Nathu.We are of the view that the High Court rightly held that in the circumstances of this case the declaration made by Nathu before the village Panchayat on March 24, 1946 and the execution of a deed of adoption which he cancelled within a short time were not a sufficient manifestation of the intention of Nathu to adopt Inder Singh as his son. There was no evidence that Nathu Singh treated Inder Singh as his son; on the contrary, there was evidence to show that he repudiated the declaration that he had earlier made.