D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) FACTS giving rise to this second appeal are set out in detail in my order dated the 14th March, 1960, in Second Appeal from Order No. 21 of 1958 (Joginder Singh v. Rulda Singh). I dismissed that appeal against the remand order. While dismissing the appeal I directed that the only matter which the lower appellate Court has to settle is to find out who are the heirs of Smt. Aso under section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Aso having become the absolute owner of the property inherited by her from her son.
(2.) THE learned Additional District Judge has held that the plaintiff, who is the collateral of the husband, is a better heir than the brother's son of the lady, and in this view of the matter the plaintiff's suit has been decreed. Against this decision the present second appeal has been preferred. Mr. Shamair Chand's first contention is that as Smt. Aso succeeded to her son, therefore, the collaterals of the husband are not heirs to such a property. At first flash this argument appears to be very attractive, but if one turns to section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, which is in these terms : 15. (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, - (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -section (1), - (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre -deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub -section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father -in -law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre -deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub -section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband, the argument becomes untenable, the scheme of the section is that the heirs of a Hindu female are given in section 15(1) irrespective of the source from which she gets the property by succession or inheritance, but section 15(2) provides two exceptions to the general rule, namely, if she inherits the property from her father or mother, clause (a) to section 15(2) provides the rule of succession and if she inherits the property from her husband or father -in -law, clause (b) of section 15(2) provides the rule of succession. In the present case, section 15(2)(a) or (b) is not applicable, as she never inherited the property from her father or mother, or husband or father -in -law. It is common ground that she inherited the property from her son Modan Singh. Thus section 15(1)(b) will apply, and according to section 15(1)(b) of the Act it is the heirs of the husband who will succeed. The plaintiff being an agnate will succeed. Faced with this situation, Mr. Shamair Chand next contended that the plaintiff's father came into the family by adoption and as the parties are Jets and thus governed by the Punjab Customary Law the adoption merely creates a personal relationship and it did not transplant Arjan Singh, the father of the plaintiff into the adoptive family, and, therefore, he does not become the member of that family. This matter was examined by the learned Additional District Judge, who came to the conclusion that the general customary rule in the eastern districts of Punjab, particularly, in Ambala district, is that the adoption in Jats partakes of the formal adoption under the Hindu Law, and the adopted son is transplanted in the adoptive family. He further held that the adopted son had collaterally succeeded when succession opened out in the adoptive family which is only consistent with a formal adoption. If the adoption of Arjan Singh, the father of the plaintiff, was merely an appointment of an heir, he would not have succeeded collaterally in the adoptive family and his right to succeed collaterally would only be in his natural family. That being so, I agree with the lower appellate Court that Arjan Singh was formally adopted in the family of Buta, the common ancestor. That being so, Rulda Singh must be treated as the collateral of Modan.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, there is no merit in this appeal, the same fails and is dismissed, but there will no order as to costs.;