Teja Singh, J. - (1.) R .F. As. Nos. 24 and 25 of 1950 arise out of the same suit and they will be disposed of by one order.
(2.) THE suit property which consists of agricultural land and a house belonged originally to one Hardit Singh. . On Hardit Singh's death the property devolved upon his widow Mst. Harnam Kaur, who mortgaged some of the land in favour of different persons at different times. On 27 -9 -2003 Mst. Harnam Kaur adopted Jangir Singh as son to her late husband and executed and got registered a regular deed of adoption in his favour. Harnam Kaur died only a few days after the last incident, i.e. on 4 -10 -2003. On 11 -1 -2004 the Plaintiffs who claimed to be the collaterals of Hardit Singh brought a suit for possession of the land as well as the house, against Jangir Singh and the mortgagees. As regards Jangir Singh their allegation was that he was never adopted by Mst. Harnam Kaur and that the transaction evidenced, by the deed of adoption was fictitious. It was mentioned in the deed of adoption that Hardit Singh had authorised Harnam Kaur to adopt a son to him. The Plaintiffs denied this fact and urged that even if Harnam Kaur had in fact adopted Jangir Singh, the adoption was opposed to the custom by which they were governed and consequently did not affect their reversionary, interest. As regards the mortgages the Plaintiffs' position was that they were all without consideration and legal necessity and the property being ancestral qua them they were entitled to take it back from the mortgagees on Mst. Harnam Kaur's death without being called upon to pay anything in lieu of the alleged mortgages. The Plaintiffs impleaded one Charanji Lal also as a Defendant in the suit on the allegation that he was in possession of the house unlawfully and without any right. All the Defendants resisted the suit. Jangir Singh pleaded that his adoption being according 'to the wishes of Mst. Harnam Kaur's late husband, could not be legally challenged by the Plaintiffs. The mortgagees denied that the land was ancestral qua the Plaintiffs and further pleaded that they were all for consideration and necessity. Chiranji Lal admitted that he was in possession of the house but pleaded that his possession was by virtue of a sale that Mst. Harnam Kaur had made in his father's favour on 22 -3 -1989. In addition the Defendants urged that the suit was barred by time. The trial Judge at first framed the following six issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs are collaterals of Hardit Singh deceased and the land in dispute is ancestral qua the Plaintiffs? 2. Whether the suit is within limitation? 3. Whether Kishori Lal is a necessary party to the suit and if so, wha.t is its effect? (Kishori Lal was said to be one of the heirs of the person in whose favour according to Chiranji Lal Mst. Harnam Kaur sold the house),
(3.) WAS Jangir Singh Defendant No. X adopted by Mst. Harnam Kaur deceased' and if so, was the adoption valid according to law and custom?;