LAWS(RAJ)-1954-1-16

SARJEET SINGH Vs. KRIPAL SINGH

Decided On January 22, 1954
SARJEET SINGH Appellant
V/S
KRIPAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of the former State of Bikaner dated the 30th September, 1947, and has come to us for disposal by virtue of the provisions of the Rajasthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) Ordinance (No. XL) of 1949 read with the Rajasthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. XII) of 1950.

(2.) THE appellant Sarjeet Singh was defendant No. I in the suit which was brought against him and Mst. Harkur by the plaintiff Kripal Singh. Kripal Singh's case was that Mst. Har Kaur's husband, Prem Singh, had taken the plaintif in adoption by a registered deed dated the 26th July, 1926, therefore, the subsequent adoption of Sarjeet Singh by Mst. Har Kaur by a registered deed dated 21st April, 1945, was void and ineffectual against the interests of Kripal Singh. It may be pointed out here that Kripal Singh was then son of a sister of Prem Singh. Defendant Sarjeet Singh resisted the suit by denying the adoption of Kripal Singh and further pleaded that Kripal Singh never came into possession of Prem Singh's estate although the latter had died as early as 1937. It is not necessary for us to refer to other defences which had been subsequently raised by Sarjeet Singh, as they are not material for the purposes of the present appeal. THE District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he had failed to prove that his adoption by Prem Singh was supported by subsequent conduct to that effect; in other words, the learned District Judge held that Kripal Singh's adoption had not been acted upon and was, therefore, of no effect. THE plaintiff went up in appeal to the High Court of the former State of Bikaner, and the learned Judges of the Division Bench who heard the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Sarjeet Singh then applied for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party granted the leave by an order dated 12th March, 1953, on the ground that the case involved the decision of a question which was of considerable public importance and upon which there was a divergence of opinion.

(3.) FROM a review of the above cases, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that what is in fact essential to uphold an adoption which is undoubtedly a customary adoption in Bikaner is that the adoptive parent should make an unequivocal declaration as to adoption which may be either by way of an announcement before the brotherhood or by means of a writing which may also be registered and that it is not necessary to the validity of such an adoption that there should be further subsequent treatment between the adoptive parent and the adopted son as such. With respect, we may point out that it appears to us that it is one thing to say that to prove a customary adoption, an unequivocal declaration by the adoptive parent coupled with subsequent treatment would be sufficient, but it would be quite another thing to say that such subsequent treatment is essential to the validity of the adoption - a distinction which seems to have been lost sight of in most of the cases which we have discussed above. We may further point out that it is always open to an adoptive parent to question an adoption on the ground of fraud or undue influence or similar other ground where any such factors may have come into play and there of course the question of subsequent treatment between the adoptive parent and the adopted son would certainly be relevant and may have an important beating on the points raised. But such cases part the factors of subsequent treatment seems to us to be an unwarranted complication which is bound to lead to interminable disputes between the parties concerned and make the lot of the adopted son a most unenviable one. We hold accordingly. In this view, the adoption of Kripalsingh must prevail as against that of the defendant appellant Sarjeet Singh.