S.N.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of bhumidhari rights instituted by one Smt. Sahebzadi. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Smt. Sahebzadi, plaintiff, filed the suit in respect of a number or plots of village Basanipur Tappa Kataura Pargana Silhat, detailed at the foot of the plaint. Her case was that the plots in suit were previously the sir and khudkasht holding of Ram Dhani, her husband, and after his death she became the sir and khudkasht holder and subsequent to the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act she became the bhumidhar thereof. It was asserted that the defendant in collusion with the lekhpal fictitiously got his name entered in the revenue records although he never cultivated any of the plots which all along remained in the cultivatory possession of the plaintiff. During the pendency of this suit Smt. Sahebzadi died on 4th August 1961 and the present appellant was substituted in her place. The present appellant claimed to be the adopted son of Smt. Sahebzadi.
(2.) THE suit of Smt. Sahebzadi was contested by the defendant who alleged that Ram Dhani, the husband of Smt. Sahebzadi who was the first cousin of the defendant, lived jointly with him and after the death of Ram Dhani the defendant came in exclusive possession of the property. In the alternative, he claimed sirdari and asami rights on the basis of his continuous possession. After the substitution of the appellant the defendant filed an additional written statement wherein he challenged the adoption and further challenged the right of the appellant to sue. The learned Munsif on the pleadings of parties framed relevant issues and referred issues Nos. 2 to 4 relating to sirdari, adhivasi and asami right to the competent revenue Court. The revenue court returned the finding in the negative holding that the defendant had not acquired sirdari, adhivasi or assami right in the plots in suit. After the receipt of these findings the learned Munsif took up other issues and found that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of Smt. Sahebzadi, as such, he did not acquire bhumidhari rights. In any case, it was held that he could not succeed to Ram Dhani and the suit was not cognizable by the civil court in view of the amended Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Having arrived at these findings he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court accepted the adoption of the appellant but found that although adoption was established the appellant did not succeed to bhumldhari plots which were the property of Ram Dhani, the husband of Smt. Sahebzadi. According to the learned Judge the adoption made by Smt. Sahebzadi was to herself and the adopted son could succeed to the personal property left by her but could not succeed to the property of her husband. Accordingly he maintained the dismissal of the suit though on different grounds. Subhash Misir, the adopted son, has come up in appeal to this Court against the concurrent decisions.
(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel that the lower appellate court having accepted the adoption erred in dismissing the suit. His contention is that adoption made by Smt. Sahebzadi was an adoption to her husband and the plaintiff-appellant would be deemed to be the son of Ram Dhani for the purposes of succession. Relevant provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were referred to by the learned counsel. The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the appellant who is the adopted son of Smt. Sahebzadi would succeed to the bhumidhari land left by Smt. Sahebzadi which she had inhertied from her husband before the date of vesting.;