RSA No.551 of 2017 (OM) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.551 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision:15.05.2019

Gurmeet Singh (since deceased) through LRs … Appellant

Vs.

Jagdeep Singh and others … Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:- Mr. D.S.Brar, Advocate
for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J.

The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful before both the

Courts below in seeking declaration to be owner in possession of land

measuring 1/15th share of land out of land measuring 237 kanals 17 marlas

situated in the revenue estate of Kotkapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot by

laying challenge to the mutation of inheritance qua estate of Sukhdev Singh

to be null and void with a consequential relief of injunction as well.

It was alleged that Sukhdev Singh son of Santokh Singh was

owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/3 share and in 1965, alongwith his

wife Patwant Kaur and daughters Daljit Kaur and Raminder Kaur went to

England. The natural parent of the plaintiff were Ajit Singh and Sukhwinder

Kaur. Ajit Singh and Sukhdev Singh were the first brothers. Ajit Singh had

four sons and two daughters whereas Sukhdev Singh as stated above had

two daughters. Since then Sukhdev Singh had been treating the plaintiff as

1 of 5
09-06-2019 23:03:14 :::
RSA No.551 of 2017 (OM) {2}

his son. The suit aforementioned was filed in 2009. Ajit Singh died before

that.

The defendants contested the suit and denied that plaintiff was

ever adopted as son of Sukhdev Singh or the alleged adoption ceremony.

The plaintiff even forged and manipulated so many documents. Even FIR

bearing No.221 dated 25.09.2008 was also registered against him in police

station city Kotkapura, manipulated the date of birth in 1962 whereas he

was born in 1959 and this fact was verified from the record of Govt. Senior

Secondary School (Boys) Kotkapura. It was alleged that Sukhdev Singh

during life time had executed a valid Will dated 23.06.1990 in their favour

for which mutation of inheritance was sanctioned.

The plaintiff in support of the aforementioned pleadings

examined PW1-Gurdial Singh, PW2-Baldev Singh son of Santokh Singh,

brother of Sukhdev Singh, PW3-Avtar Singh, PW4-Gurmit Singh, plaintiff

himself, PW5-Rajiv Kumar Clerk, DAV High School, PW6-Gurpreet Singh,

computer clerk, office of the District Registrar Birth and Death, PW7-

Sukhbir Singh, PW8-Sukhdev Singh and brought on record the documents

Ex.P1 to Ex.P37. On the other hand, defendants examined DW1-Randeep

Kaur Pannu, DW2-Sukhmandar Singh, DW3-Bhajan Singh, DW4-

Surinderpal Kaur Sen, DW5-Parminder Kaur, DW6-Karamjit Singh SLA,

DW7-Rajesh Kumar, Additional Ahlmad, DW8-Deepak Bajaj Copyist,

DW9-Satnam Singh Office Kanungo, DW9- Satnam Singh and brought on

record the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D8.

The trial Court while noticing all the documents extensively

2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 09-06-2019 23:03:14 :::
RSA No.551 of 2017 (OM) {3}

dismissed the suit and appeal taken before the Lower Appellate Court was

also dismissed.

Mr.D.S.Brar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-plaintiff being represented by legal representatives submitted that

adoption ceremony had been proved through the testimony of PW1 to PW4

which was in consonance with the provisions of Sections 6 and 11 of Hindu

Adoption and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956. The age of the appellant at the

relevant point of time was 07 years. The formal ceremony of giving and

taking had taken place which is enough requirement of law. The un-

registered Will propounded by the defendants was not brought on record,

nor the witnesses were examined. All 37 documents except one as noticed

above revealed not only the school certificates but also various other

documents i.e. register of birth and death to prove the adoption. PW2 is also

brother of father of the plaintiff and therefore, there was compliance of the

provisions of Section 50 of Indian Evidence Act and thus, urged this Court

for setting aside the findings under challenge.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the

judgments and decree of the Courts below and of the view that there is no

force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Brar.

This Court appreciated that the trial Court examined each and

every documents spanning from Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 i.e. birth certificate of

defendant no.1 Jagdeep Singh which had no relevancy, Ex.P3 to Ex.P7, the

correspondence by Dr. Gurdial Singh-PW1, Ex.P8 copy of the passport of

the plaintiff but the same was not proved on record as it was only tendered,

3 of 5
09-06-2019 23:03:14 :::
RSA No.551 of 2017 (OM) {4}

Ex.P9 to Ex.P13 nor related to the adoption as there was letter written by

him to get the copies of decree of divorce of Sukhdev Singh and Patwant

Kaur, Ex.P14 and Ex.P15, certificates issued by the Principal Sacred Heart

Senior Secondary School to defendant no.2-Daljit Kaur, Ex.P16 marriage

certificate of Sukhdev Singh with defendant no.4-Mohinder Kaur, Ex.P17

death certificate of Patwant Kaur, Ex.P18 marriage certificate of defendant

no.2 Daljit Kaur, Ex.P20, death certificate of Sukhdev Singh, Ex.P21 school

leaving certificate of plaintiff showing his date of birth as 01.06.1958 and

father’s name as Sukhdev Singh but the said documents were not sufficient

to prove alleged adoption. Ex.P22 letter issued by District Registrar, Births

and Death reflecting that application was allegedly submitted by Santokh

Singh but Gurmeet Singh admitted that he had no record of application.

Ex.P23 letter written by District Registrar Births and Deaths Amritsar;

Ex.P24 another letter written by Additional District Registrar Births and

Deaths Amritsar but Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 did not reveal the record of birth of

the plaintiff in village Dhotia and various other documents.

The best possible evidence for the plaintiff was to examine the

biological mother who as per the argument of Mr. Brar, died only in 2018.

Even biological sisters could have also been examined. Had such efforts

been made, burden as per the provisions of Section 50 of Indian Evidence

Act, could have been duly discharged.

Owing to the closeness of the family, a person or immediate

family member, as noticed above who actually participated in the

proceedings is the best witness to prove the adoption.

4 of 5
09-06-2019 23:03:14 :::
RSA No.551 of 2017 (OM) {5}

It is a matter of record that Gurmeet Singh has also died and

being represented by legal representatives.

The findings of fact and law declining the relief qua the estate

of Sukhdev Singh, adopted father cannot be said to be suffering from

illegality and perversity. No ground for interference is made out.

Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
May 15, 2019
savita

Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
09-06-2019 23:03:14 :::