Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendants' appeal against a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, allowing an appeal against a judgment and decree of Mr. Jagdish Narain Kapur who dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit.
(2.) IN order to understand the case it is necessary to refer to the following pedigree table of the family: (See pedigree table on page 118) Jowala Singh son of Wisakhi in the line of Lakha adopted Hakam Singh son of Malla, in the line of Jowahar Singh. Jowala Singh son of Jaiwal in the line of Massa died and mutation of his estate was entered on appeal in favour of the collaterals excluding the descendants of Hakam Singh. On the 29th of November, 1946, Hakam Singh's sons, Kesar Singh, Diwan Singh and Gian Singh brought a suit for joint possession claiming one -fourth estate of Jowala Singh alleging that the adoption of Hakam Singh was according to Hindu Law and therefore there was a complete transplantation in the adoptive family and even under custom he was entitled to get his share as the son of Malla. The trial Court held that the adoption of Hakam Singh was a customary appointment of heir and that the Plaintiffs were not entitled under custom to succeed collaterally in the family of the adoptive father. An appeal was taken to the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, by the Plaintiffs who held that Hakam Singh was adopted when he was 12 days old more than fifty years ago and when his mother was dead, that in the previous litigation of the year 1892 a finding had been given 'inter partes' that there was a regular giving and taking of the boy and that Hakam Singh did not inherit the estate of his natural father when he died, nor did DHARMUN | | | | Jita Lakha Massa | || | | | Jowahar Singh Wisakhi Jailai Achhru | | | | | Jawala Singh Jowala Singh Ghasita | | | Hakam Singh | adopted son | | | | | | | | Kesar Singh Diwan Singh Gian Singh | | | | | Nihala Khushala Walla Malla Jhandu | || | | | Indar Singh Wadhawa Singh Mula Singh Santu | | | | Ghulla Singh suba singh Gurdit Singh he share in the estate when his natural father's brother Walla died, and "therefore it was as complete an adoption as a jat, adoption can be." I must frankly confess that this finding is as completely ununderstandable as it possibly could be. The fact remains, however, that, after the adoption, Hakam Singh did not inherit either in the estate of his natural father or in the estate of Malla's brother Walla. The Additional District Judge also held that because of the reason he had given Hakam Singh's sons could inherit collaterally. Mr. Roop Chand Chaudhri in appeal submits that the general custom of the province is that a son appointed under custom does not succeed collaterally in the family of his adoptive father and he relies on paragraph 49 of Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law: 49. Nor, on the other hand, does the heir acquire a right to succeed to the collateral relatives of the person who appoints him, where no formal adoption has taken place, inasmuch as the relationship established between him and the appointer is a purely personal one. He has also relied on a judgment of the Chief Court in 'Chetu v. Jawand Singh' 107 P.R. 1913, where it was held that among Sikh, Jats of Tarn Taran Tahsil of Amritsar District an appointed son does not succeed collaterally in the adoptive father's family. This judgment is based on several other decided cases of other districts and on Article 49 of Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law, but it is stated there that neither the Record of Rights nor the Customary Law of the Tahsil or District nor any instances had been cited in that case. In my opinion, this judgment is not of much assistance in this case.
(3.) IN Rattigan's Digest at P. 218, there are given several cases showing that collateral succession was permitted in various districts and instances are given of Cheema Jats of Sialkot District and of Hindu Jats of Gurdaspur District. It is no doubt true that the custom as stated in Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law has to be taken as a statement of very high authority, but in the present case in the Riwaj -i -am of 1914 compiled by Sir Henry Craik question No. 91 and answer to it is as follows: Question 91. Can an adopted son succeed collaterally in the family of his adoptive father? A. All the tribes state that an adopted son succeeds collaterally in the family of his adoptive father, with the exception of Brahmans and Khatris of Neshta, who say that he does not do so. The rule defined by the Courts, however, is that an adopted son has no right to succeed in this manner. The latest ruling on this point is 'Chetu v. Jawand Singh',, 107 P.R. 1913, in which it was held that among Jat Sikhs of the Tarn Taran Tahsil an adopted son appointed by the usual customary method, doe not succeed to collaterals and his adoptive father' representative. The ruling given in this Customary Law is the sam which I have already referred to above. In the Riwaj -i -am of 1940, Exhibit P. 7, questions 88 an 90 and their answers are as follows: Question 88. What are the rights of an adopted so in the estate of his adoptive father? A. All tribes. The adopted son has the same rights in the estate of his adoptive father as the of natural sons. Question 90. Has an adopted son any rights of collateral succession in the family of his adoptive father A. Yes. For mutations see Appendix No. 1 an for decided cases see Appendix No. 2.;