N.N.MITHAL, J. - (1.) IN this appeal only a short point about the validity of the adoption of Indra Jit Singh by Smt. Saras -wati Kunwar is involved. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent in January, 1965 as a nearest reversioner of Smt. Saraswati Kunwar, who allegedly died in the later part of 1964. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal, the lower appellate court has allowed the same. Aggrieved, the defendants have come up in second Appeal.
(2.) IN order to properly understand the case taken up by the plaintiff, it will be necessary to keep in mind the relations between the parties as per pedigree given below : - - JUDGEMENT_158_TLALL0_1981.htm From a look at the pedigree, it will be clear that the branch of Kalloo had come to an end and in the branch of Tulsi, the last male member was Manni Lal, whose widow was Smt. Saraswati Kunwar. The third branch of Vishnu had Nandkumar, the plaintiff, as the last and nearest reversionary male member on the date of the suit. The plaintiff alleged that Manni Lal died in 1930 and Smt. Saraswati Kunwar also died some time in the latter part of 1964. After the death of Manni Lal, Smt. Saraswati Kunwar had become the limited owner of the property and that after her death, the plaintiff as her nearest reversioner, was entitled to the property once belonging to Manni Lal. The defendants had no concern with the property in suit and they were only grand -children of Smt. Saraswati Kun -war's brother. On this basis, the suit (Contd. on Col. 2) for possession was filed, by the plaintiff.
(3.) THE defendants put in contest and alleged that the pedigree set up by the plaintiff was incorrect and that Tulsi Ram had no brother by the name of Vishnu and that Kamta died during the lifetime of Manni Lal and also that one Indra Jit Singh had been adopted by Smt. Saraswati Kunwar according to the direction given by her husband and a registered deed of adoption was also executed by her on 19 -5 -1952. Indra Jit Singh, therefore, claims to be adopted son and on his death the defendants were owners of the property in question. Ajit Singh, defendant No. 1, also died and he is now represented by his legal representatives. A replica was filed by the plaintiff on 12 -9 -1970, in which the adoption was denied and it was also alleged that Manni Lal had never given any authority to his wife to adopt a SOB. It was further alleged that even if the adoption may have been taken place, the same was illegal and that Indra Jit Singh was already married in 1942.;