JESA Vs. KUMBHA
LAWS(RAJ)-1958-4-28
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 09,1958

Jesa Appellant
VERSUS
Kumbha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.N. Wanchoo, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Jesa and Taru defendants against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar, by which the suit brought by Kumbha plaintiff was decreed.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was briefly this. He claimed to be the descendant of one Sheoram and set out the pedigree in the plaint which was not in dispute. The relevant portion of that pedigree for our purposes is as below: - - SHEORAM | _________________________________________________ | | | Rama Jiwan Dalu | | | Amru Deepa Nathu | | | _________________________ Narsa=widow Kumbha.P. | | Lachhma) Pusa Lacchman | | (died Jesa D.1 Jesa D.I issueless) (taken (Taken in adoption boy in adoption) Narsa's widow) | Taru D.2 The suit is with respect to property left by Lachhman and Pusa who are both dead. The case of the plaintiff is that when Jesa was adopted by Narsa's widow, Jesa's son Taru also went along with his father and must be deemed to have been taken out of the family of Pusa and gone into the family of Narsa. It was said that this was due to custom prevalent in the former State of Bikaner, according to which when a father was adopted, his sons, who had been born before the adoption, also went along with the father into the adoptive family and therefore, lost all rights in their original family. Consequently, the plaintiff claimed that when Pusa and Lachhman died, they must be held to have died without issue. Their property, therefore, would go to the descendants of Sheoram. The plaintiff claimed that he and Jesa were the two nearest heirs of Pusa and Lachhman on this basis and therefore, he was entitled to 1/2 share in the property left by Pusa and Lachhman along with Jesa. The plaintiff therefore, prayed for a declaration to that effect and as he was out of possession, he claimed joint possession with Jesa.
(3.) THE suit was resisted by both Jesa and Taru. Their case was that there was no such custom as was pleaded by the plaintiff and that according to Hindu Law, Taru remained in the family of Pusa after the adoption of his father Jesa and was thus entitled to succeed to the property of Pusa and Lachhman, being the nearest descendant of both.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.