Ram Kishore vs Jai Parkash And Others on 21 October, 2009

RSA No. 1213 of 1983                 1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                               RSA No. 1213 of 1983

                               Date of Decision: October 21, 2009


Ram Kishore                                       ...... Appellant


      Versus



Jai Parkash and others                            ...... Respondents



Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:    Mr.Vaneet Soni, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate
            for the respondents.
                   ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J.

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that he

inherited 1/3rd share in the property of Ruli Ram. Both the courts on facts

held that the appellant had been adopted by his maternal uncle Lekh Raj

since he had no son and that, therefore, the appellant severed all ties with

his natural family and was integrated in the adoptive family. The following

questions have been proposed:-

i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts

below have completely misread the evidence led by he
RSA No. 1213 of 1983 2

plaintiff/appellant while holding the plaintiff/appellant as

adopted son of Lekh Raj on the basis of oral evidence led by

the defendant/respondent?

ii) Whether the properties acquired from the income generated

from ancestral business could be termed as joint Hindu

Family Property?

iii)Whether the findings given by learned lower appellate court

is perverse especially when it is settled law that the

properties purchased from the income from the business

which came through inheritance is also a joint family

property?

iv)Whether the will is to be proved as per procedure provided

under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued only question No.

(i). The main thrust of learned counsel to justify the allegation of

misreading is that all the certificates of the appellant describe him as the son

of Ruli Ram and further that the mother of the appellant had also denied

having given him in adoption to her brother.

Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, argued that

both these facts have been considered by the courts below but on an over all

view of the evidence the courts below have come to the conclusion that the

appellant was adopted by Lekh Raj.

I have gone through the findings of the courts below and find

that this is indeed so. It is not the case that these pieces of evidence have

not been considered. They have been considered but the evidence to the

contrary effect has been believed. Learned counsel has has not been able to
RSA No. 1213 of 1983 3

persuade me that the finding returned on the issue of adoption is either

based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as

to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC.

In the circumstances this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

October 21, 2009
sunita