JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision application against an order of Munsif, Nawa refusing an amendment of the plaint.
(2.) BHOMARAM plaintiff instituted a suit against Pannaram and Issaram. It was stated in the plaint that Pannaram validly adopted BHOMARAM in Samvat 2010 in accordance with the customs of the community and prevalent religious practices and that subsequently Pannaram executed a registered adoption deed in favour of Issaram on 30th August, 1963. The suit was instituted, inter alia, for a declaration that Issaram is not the adopted son of Pannaram. In his written statement Issaram challenged the validity of the adoption of Bhomaram on the ground that he was Pannaram's sister's son who could not be adopted in accordance with the Hindu Law. The trial Court framed the following issues: - (1) Whether the plaintiff is the validly adopted son of the non-petitioner No. 1 since Vikram Samvat 2010. (2) Whether the adoption deed dated 30th August, 1963 executed and registered by the non-petitioner No. 1 in favour of the non-petitioner No. 2 was invalid for the reasons stated in para 5 of the plaint. (3) Whether the petitioner is the son of the sister of the non-petitioner No. 1 and therefore he could not be adopted in law and what would be its effect on suit. (4) Relief. Plaintiff appeared as his own witness and in cross-examination he admitted that he was Pannaram's sister's son. As soon as this admission was made the court ordered that it will hear arguments on issue No. 3 before proceeding further with the case. Issaram defendant stated that he did not wish to produce any oral evidence on the issue. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint. In this application it was also alleged that custom had already been pleaded by him but that if the court thought that it was not pleaded clearly he may be allowed to plead specifically that amongst jats there was a custom by which sister's son could be adopted. The amendment was opposed on behalf of Issaram. The trial court relied on Laduram Vs. Sheodev (1) and rejected the application. On behalf of the applicant it is contended on the authority of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgona Patil (2), Badri Prasad Vs. Ramprasad (3), Raja Ghanshyam Singh Vs. Raja Kalyan Singh (4) that the trial Court seriously erred in refusing the amendment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the amendment should have been allowed. The decision in Laduram Vs. Sheodev, cannot be considered to be laying down good law in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to above. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff should have clearly pleaded the alleged customs by which a jat could validly adopt this sister's son in his plaint but he should not be deprived of his legal right merely because of the mistake he committed in drafting the plaint. I accordingly allow the revision application on payment of Rs. 75/- as costs whithin one month's time, set aside the order of the trial Court and allow the application for amendment. In the circumstances of the case I direct that the costs shall abide the final decision of the suit. If costs are not paid within the time allowed the revision application will stand dismissed with costs. . ;