Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arshad Minor vs Mehmood Khan And Others on 21 March, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 1400 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 21.03.2013
Arshad minor ....... Appellant
versus
Mehmood Khan and others ....... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate
for the appellant.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
Present appeal emanates from judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Nuh, whereby, it upheld the findings of the trial court, decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff Mehmood Khan.
Plaintiff filed two suits claiming that Mehmood Khan and Bhondu are co-sharers in the suit property as described in the plaint. Gulab was common ancestor of plaintiff and Bhondu. The property devolved on Kala Khan being his son and thereafter, it was inherited by Medi and Bhondu being his sons in equal shares. After death of Medi half share devolved on plaintiff being son of Medi. Thus, he became co-sharer of the plaintiff being owner of half share along with Bhondu. Both the appellants are meos in caste and are governed by custom. Thus, property cannot be alienated without legal necessity. Defendant Arshad being son of Mariyam daughter of deceased Bhondu and she managed to get the adoption dated 08.08.1996 in favour of the Arshad. Plaintiff claimed that said adoption deed was RSA No. 1400 of 2011(O&M) -2- null and void, be declared as such. He also prayed that the defendant be restrained from alienating the property and also the alienation made by defendant Bhondu be declared null and void.
To prove the case, plaintiff himself stepped into witness box as PW-2 and examined one Sardar PW-3 who deposed regarding the custom amongst heirs. Defendants examined Tula Ram Gupta DW-1 who proved adoption deed Ex: D-1. Two other witnesses were also examined to prove the adoption deed. A teacher from Government primary school was examined as DW-4 who proved admission form Ex:D-2. Some other evidence was also brought on record by defendant on his emanation of said evidence.
Trial court came to conclusion that adoption deed dated 08.08.1996 was null and void and had no effect on rights of plaintiff. Suit of the plaintiffs decreed. The other suit preferred by the plaintiff challenging alienation was however, dismissed.
Aggrieved, both the parties preferred appeal before the lower appellate court. However, findings were upheld by said court.
In the present appeal, counsel for appellant has only assailed the findings regarding the adoption deed being null and void. He submits that adoption deed dated 08.08.1996 could not be delcared null and void, in view of evidence produced before the courts below.
I am not convinced with this argument. Plaintiff led reliable evidence to prove his pleas and on that basis he succeeded in proving that adoption deed was null and void. There is no ground RSA No. 1400 of 2011(O&M) -3- to interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts below.
In my considered view, no substantial question of law is involved warranting interference in second appeal. Dismissed.
As the appeal has decided on merits, the delay in refilling the same is deemed to have been condoned.
[RAJAN GUPTA] JUDGE 21st March, 2013 Shivani Kaushik