Case: Inder Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh

2. The relevant facts are these. Nathu, the last male holder of the property in dispute, was a Jat of Ludhiana district. He was blind, not married and had no issue. He was a resident of village Mohanpur. Inder Singh, a resident of the same village, was his nephew by collateral relation of the fifth degree. Inder Singhs case was that he looked after Nathu since his childhood and on March 24, 1946. Nathu adopted him, according to the custom prevalent amongst them, before the village Panchayat by distributing "gur" (jaggery) and on the next day, that is, March 25, 1946, Nathu executed a deed of adoption in his favour and got it registered on the same day. For a short period thereafter Nathu lived with Inder Singh. Then Gujar Singh, defendant in the suit. who was a nearer collateral of Nathu, gained influence over the latter. Nathu left Inder Singh and on September 6, 1946, cancelled the deed of gift. Nathu died three years after, that is, on October 27, 1949. On Nathus death Gujar Singh got the property of Nathu mutated in his name in the revenue records. Inder Singh then brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession of the property of Nathu Singh, which consisted of about 16 bighas odd of land and a house, on the footing that he was the adopted son of Nathu. The suit was contested by Gujar Singh who alleged inter alia that Inder Singh was not validly adopted by Nathu in accordance with the custom prevalent amongst the Jats of Ludhiana.3. The trial Judge held that the story of the alleged adoption before the village Panchayat was not substantiated and the recitals in the deed of adoption were incorrect. He further found that according to the customary rules of adoption the deed of adoption could not have any effect unless after its execution there was a continuous course of conduct showing that Nathu treated Inder Singh as his son and inasmuch as there was no evidence to show such association, Inder Singh had failed to make out his case. The suit was accordingly, dismissed. Inder Singh then preferred an appeal which was heard by the District Judge of Ludhiana. On a consideration of the evidence the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that it established that Nathu did declare Inder Singh as his heir before the village Panchayat on or about March 24, 1946, and that Nathu dived with Inder Singh for a very short period thereafter. This, in the opinion of the learned District Judge, was sufficient to establish a valid adoption according to the customary rules and no further evidence of association as father and son between the two was necessary. In this view of the matter, the learned District Judge held that the cancellation of the deed of adoption by Nathu on September 6, 1946, was of no effect, because all adoption once validly made could not be revoked. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal.Gujar Singh cried sometime after the appellate decision and the present respondents as heirs and legal representatives of Gujar Singh carried a second appeal to the Punjab High Court. The learned Judges of the High Court held that the rules of customary adoption prevalent amongst the parties required two essential elements : (a) an intention to appoint an heir, and (b) an act of association between the two as father and son. They held that the short period of about six weeks during which Nathu lived with the appellant after the execution of the creed of adoption was not sufficient to prove that Nathu treated Inder Singh as his future heir there was, therefore, no such association as would make the adoption valid according to the customary rules relevant amongst the Jats of Ludhiana district. On this view the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge and restored those of the Court of first instance.5. The judgment being a judgment of reversal and the value of the property in dispute more than Rs. 20,000 the High Court gave a certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution read with Ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On that certificate the present appeal has come to us.

Reasoning: 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.