High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 December, 2009
RSA No.1621 of 2007(O&M)                                                        1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                                 R.S.A. No. 1621 of 2007 (O&M)
                                 Date of Decision: December 03, 2009



Amar Singh                                           ...........Appellant

                                Versus


State of Punjab and others                           ..........Respondents




Coram:       Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.Munish Singal, Advocate for the appellant.
         Mr.J.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the respondent

                                **

Sabina, J.

Plaintiff-Amar Singh filed a suit for declaration. Vide

judgment and decree dated 17.11.2004, the suit of the plaintiff was

dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka.

Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was

dismissed by the Additional District Judge Ferozepur vide judgment and

decree dated 9.2.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.

The facts of the case in brief, as noticed by the learned

Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, are reproduced

herein below:-

“2.The facts pleaded by the appellant before the learned trial court

were that Kulwant Singh son of Hardit Singh was serving as

Assistant Line Man with respondent No.2 Punjab State Electricity

Board (hereinafter referred as the Board). When the appellant

was two years old Kulwant Singh adopted him as his son from his
RSA No.1621 of 2007(O&M) 2

natural parents, who were residents of village Rukanpur because

Kulwant Singh was issueless. An adoption deed to this effect was

executed and got attested from Notary Public Fazilka. Kulwant

Singh died on 25.7.2000. The appellant performed all the last

rites and ceremonies of Kulwant Singh as his son. During his life

time, the appellant had been looking after Kulwant Singh as his

father. Kulwant Singh was having love and affection for him. On

5.4.2000 Kulwant Singh executed Will in favour of the appellant

bequeathing his movable or immovable properties in his favour,

including his service/pensionary benefits lying with the Board.

After the death of Kulwant Singh, appellant approached the

respondent No.2 to admit him as adopted son of Kulwant Singh

and to release bill the amounts belonging to Kulwant Singh but

they refused. The appellant served legal notice towards

respondent No.2 but with no effect. Hence, he filed suit for

declaration to the effect that he was adopted son of Kulwant

Singh and was entitled to receive all the service/pensionary

benefits of Kulwant Singh lying with the respondent No.2 on the

basis of adoption deed dated 5.8.1998 and also on the basis of

Will dated 5.4.2000 duly executed by deceased Kulwant Singh

3. Notice of the suit was given to the respondents. None appeared

on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus they were

proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed

written statement contesting the suit of the appellant. In its

preliminary objections maintainability of the suit was challenged.

According to the contesting respondent, the appellant was having
RSA No.1621 of 2007(O&M) 3

no locus standi to file the suit. He did not come to the court with

clean hands. Suit was based on frivolous grounds and on the

basis of fabricated and forged documents. On merits it was

averred that the appellant was never adopted by deceased Kulwant

Singh. It was averred that he was not entitled to receive any of

the service/pensionary benefits of Kulwant Singh lying with

respondent No.2. The documents were alleged to be forged and

fabricated. It was prayed that the suit of the appellant be

dismissed.”

On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the

following issues:-

“1.Whether the plaintiff is adopted son of Kulwant Singh, vide

adoption deed dated 5.8.1998?OPP

2.Whether Kulwant Singh executed a valid Will dated 5.4.2000 in

favour of the plaintiff?OPP

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed

for?OPP

4.Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present

form ?OPD

5.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to

file the present suit?OPD

6.Relief.”

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Plaintiff had filed the suit that he was adopted son of

Kulwant Singh. An adoption deed had been executed on 5.8.1998 (Exhibit
RSA No.1621 of 2007(O&M) 4

P1). After the death of Kulwant Singh, plaintiff being adopted son was

entitled to the pensionary benefits. The case of the plaintiff further was that

he had been adopted by Kulwant Singh when he was aged about 2 years.

However, a perusal of the adoption deed reveals that the plaintiff had been

adopted by Kulwant Singh on 10.11.93. Thus, the plaintiff has taken a

contrary pleading with regard to the time of his adoption. As per Section 10

of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the following are the

persons who may be adopted:-

1. he or she is a Hindu.

2. he or she has not already been adopted.

3.he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or

usuage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are

married being taken in adoption;

4. he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless

there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits

persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken

in adoption.

Admittedly, the date of birth of the plaintiff is 25.2.1978.

Thus, the plaintiff was more than 15 years old when he was allegedly

adopted by Kulwant Singh on 10.11.1993. However, plaintiff had failed to

prove that there was any custom in their community which allowed adoption

of a boy of more than 15 years.

Exhibit D1 is the result of the plaintiff qua middle standard

examination wherein he is described as son of Banta Singh and not as son of

Kulwant Singh. Thus, the plaintiff had not been adopted by Kulwant Singh

till the year 1995. There is also no explanation as to why, the adoption deed
RSA No.1621 of 2007(O&M) 5

was executed in the year 1998 and not immediately at the time of adoption

of Kulwant Singh. The Courts below had, thus, rightly dismissed the suit of

the plaintiff.

No substantial question of law arises in this case which

would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is

dismissed.

( Sabina )
Judge

December 03, 2009

arya