TAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) CAN an adoption duly recognised by decree of a Civil Court can be ignored by the Revenue Authorities. This is the question posed in this
Letters Patent Appeal preferred under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) ONE Sampuran Singh was an allottee of evacuees land. This land come to be allotted to him under Cabinet Order No; 578 -C of 1954. The
appellant Tajinder Singh came forward with a plea that he is adopted son
of Sampuran Singh and therefore, he is entitled to his rights. This plea
of his found favour with the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu exercising
the powers of Dy. Custodian General. This officer observed that the
question of adoption having been decided by the Civil Court cannot be
over looked by the departmental authorities. Harnam Singh respondent, who
was all along challenging the status of Tajinder Singh as the adopted
son, preferred a revision before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. The
Special Tribunal remanded the matter back. An observation was made that
the factum of adoption has to be established by evidence and a decree
obtained by the appellant declaring him to be the adopted son can always
be re -examined by the departmental authorities. This view expressed by
the Special Tribunal was challenged in this court in writ petition. The
writ petition stands dismissed. It is in these circumstances, an appeal
has been preferred.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that there exist a decree and the validity of this decree was challenged by Harnam Singh. He filed a civil suit.
This suit came to be dismissed on 12 -10 -1998. The appellant who is
figured as defendant in the suit urged that he is to be treated as
adopted son of Sampuran Singh and his wife Mooli. It was urged that the
factum of adoption was not denied by plaintiff Harnam Singh. Therefore,
the decree establishing his right as adopted son could not be challenged.
With regard to the rights of respondent Harnam Singh, the observations
made by the civil court while dismissing the suit on 12 -10 -1988 are as
Under section 3 -A of Agrarian Reforms Act displaced persons
allotted evacuee land shall be deemed as occupancy tenants thereof, and
shall be so recorded. Deceased Mooli and her husband Sampuran Singh being
displaced person and the land under consideration being evacuee is not
denied. Mst Mooli had died on 04 -07 -1985 as has been recorded in the
death register, a copy whereof is on record of this case. As Mooli,
therefore, had become the occupancy tenant of the land allotted to her in
her life time by operation of the law itself. Now as the deceased had
become occupancy tenant in her life time so after her death the right of
occupancy had to devolve in terms of section 67 Tenancy Act. Such being
the position of law the plaintiff herein would not have inherited the
land allotted to Mst. Mooli and got possession thereof even if there had
been no adoption made by her.
With regard to factum of adoption the claim of Harnam Singh was again negatived. What was said in this regard is re -produced below: -
Now coming to the next argument of the learned defense counsel, perusal of the plaint shows that it has not at all been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 was never adopted by Mst. Mooli. The mere fact that the decree was collusive and was granted by the court in shortest possible time is no ground for declaring the same as null and void being fraudulent. On that score also the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.