TULSAN Vs. SAHIB RAM CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to understand the controversy, which has led to the present litigation, it is necessary to reproduce the following pedigree-table: (See pedigree table on next page) The property in question had been given as a grant to Mata Din by His Highness the Maharaja of the erstwhile State of Patiala. Mata Din is stated to have made a will of his entire property giving one-third each to his two brothers Chet Ram and Badeshi Ram and the remaining one-third to his widow Smt. Anantia. The mutation of succession was sanctioned jointly in the names of these three legatees. On Badeshi Ram's death, Ram Sewak, his son, inherited one-third estate and became joint owner with Chet Ram and Smt. Anantia. On Chet Ram's death, Sahib Ram plaintiff succeeded his father. Smt. Anantia made a will on 5-3-1945 of her entire property in favour of Ram Sewak. Smt. Anantia died in 1949 and her estate was mutated to the extent of two-third share in favour of Ram Sewak and one-third in favour of Sahib Ram Plaintiff. PHIKU RAM | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Anantia Sardar Smt. Tulsan = Badeshi Chet Ram (Widow) Mata Din Defendant No. 2 Ram | (died issueless) | Sahib Ram (Plaintiff) -----------------------------------------------| | Mst. Natho = Ram Sewak Mst Shanti | Hari Kishan (adopted by Mst Natho widow of Ram Sewak) Sewak died on 12-12-1952. Mutation of his succession was sanctioned on 19-2-1953. Smt. Natho on 30-3-1954 executed a registered adoption-deed adopting Hari Kishan in pursuance of her husband's directions given during his lifetime. On 1-5-1954, Smt. Natho died and mutation of her succession was effected in favour of Hari Kishan. Ram Sewak thereafter applied for partition of the property which was opposed by Sahib Ram. The Revenue Officer, however, decided the question of title in those partition proceedings. It is in these circumstances that the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was instituted by Sahib Ram on 6-6-1955 claiming the following multifarious reliefs: 1. Possession by partition of one-half share in the property in suit.

(2.) DECLARATION to the effect that the adoption-deed dated 30-3-1954 executed by Smt. Natho is a mere paper transaction and in fact no adoption ever took place and indeed Smt. Natho had no authority to do so, with the result that Hari Kishan, defendant No 1 has no right to get the estate of Ram Sewak It is also asserted in this connection that smt. Natho had only a life interest in the estate and that after the death of Smt. Tulsaa the adoption-deed would be ineffectual against the plaintiff's reversionary rights in respect of Ram Sewak's estate Hari Kishan is thus disentitled to gel the partition effected regarding the property in question.

(3.) PARTITION proceedings going on in the Court of the Revenue Assistant Patiala, in favour of Hari Kishan are accordingly void and ineffectual against the plaintiff's rights and that the plaintiff is the owner of one-half share in the property in question which he is entitled to get partitioned.