Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1919 and 2384 of 1985, filed by defendant Mohinder Singh and plaintiff Gurbax Singh, respectively. Both these appeals have arisen from the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff regarding the properties of one Dasbndha Singh claiming himself as his adopted son.

2. The said Dasondha Singh was owner of the land measuring 40 Bighas 15 Biswas, a house and an electric motor, as mentioned in the plaint, which are the properties in dispute in the instant case. He died on 4.8.1980. On 6.9.1980, the plaintiff Gurbax Singh, who is sister's son of Dasondha Singh, instituted the present suit for possession of the aforesaid properties in dispute alleging therein that he was adopted by Dasondha Singh vide a registered adoption deed dated 3.2.1946 (Ex.P3) as his son. After the adoption, Dasondha Singh treated him as his son and he also treated him as his lather. He continuously served him during his life time. It was further pleaded that after the death of Dasondha Singh, when the plaintiff approached to the Patwari for entering the mutation of inheritance of the property of Dasondha Singh in his name, he came to know that the same was already got mutated by defendant Mohinder Singh in his name on the basis of two civil court decrees dated 15,3.1973 and 1.5.1974, which were suffered by Dasondha Singh in his favour collusively on the basis of an alleged family settlement. The plaintiff Gurbax Singh also challenged both the decrees by pleading that the same are illegal, void and ineffective and not binding on his right to succeed to the properties left by Dasondha Singh being his adopted son. It was further pleaded that Mohinder Singh was a stranger and was not related to Dasondha Singh, therefore, there was no occasion for him to transfer the ownership rights in the suit properties in favour of Mohinder Singh on the basis of a family settlement, because there cannot be any family settlement between the strangers. The alleged family settlement mentioned in the earlier two suits was nothing but a mere cloak for the transfer of the suit properties. It was further pleaded that there was no pre-existing right of Mohinder Singh in the properties of Dasondha Singh, therefore, the two collusive decrees, which were unregistered, were nothing but instruments of transfer of the property of the values exceeding Rs. 100/-. Thus, those were illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. In addition to the claim of possession, the plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits for use and occupation @. Rs. 300/- per month from the defendant from 1.9.1980 till the actual date of possession of the suit properties.

7. Regarding the evidence led by the defendant, it was held that once the adoption is validly made, the same cannot be cancelled or set aside nor the adopted son can be disinherited on the ground of any mis-conduct, disobedience or to neglect the adoptive father.

8. Regarding the nature of the suit property, it was held that the same was ancestral and caparcenary property of Dasondha Singh deceased. On issue No. 2, both the collusive decrees dated 15.3.1973 and 1.5.1974 were held to be illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. In this regard, it was held that Mohinder Singh was no where related to Dasondha Singh and was a stranger to the family. It was further held that no family settlement, on the basis of which the aforesaid two decrees were got suffered, was proved. It was further held that there was no pre-existing right vested in the defendant regarding the suit properties, therefore, the alleged decrees were instruments of transfer of the property of the value of more than Rs. 100/- without there being any registration. However, it was held that though Dasondha Singh executed a valid Will dated 23.7.1971 in favour of the defendant but under the said Will the defendant is not entitled for the suit property, which was ancestral and caparcenary property of Dasondha Singh, in view of the fact that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Dasondha Singh and Dasondha Singh was not competent to execute the Will in respect of the coparcenary properly in favour of the defendant depriving his adopted son from the same. The suit of the plaintiff was found to be within limitation.

9. In appeal by the defendant, the finding of the trial court regarding adoption, nature of the property, nature of the collusive decrees, limitation and execution of the Will dated 23.7.1971 were affirmed. However, the aforesaid decree was partly modified by the first appellate Court, and suit of the plaintiff for possession was partly decreed only to the extent of half share in the properties in dispute. His suit regarding the remaining half share was dismissed. The said modification was made on the ground that even if the adoption of the plaintiff by Dasondha Singh is held to be valid and even if the properties in question are held to be ancestral properly of Dasondha Singh, then he was legally entitled to dispose of his undivided share/interest in the coparcenary property by way of Will in view of the Explanation to Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short 'the Succession Act')- Therefore, the Will dated 23.7.1971, executed by Dasondha Singh in favour of the defendant was held to be valid to the extent of his share, and to that extent the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the plaintiff regarding mesne profits were dismissed.

16. Secondly, learned counsel for the defendant challenged the finding recorded by the Courts below on the issue of two collusive decrees. Me submitted that the consent decree is as good as the other decree for the purpose of conferring the title in whose favour such decree is passed. He further submitted that the aforesaid two decrees were passed in favour of the defendant on the basis of the admitted written statements filed by Dasondha Singh, therefore, such decrees cannot be held to be illegal and void and having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff, on the grounds that the family settlement alleged in those decrees was not proved, and that those decrees were not registered one and were not suffered on account of pre-existing right of the defendant. Me further submitted that the plaintiff has no legal right to question the aforesaid two decrees, as he was having no locus standi being only an appointed heir. He submitted that those decrees could have been declared collusive and void, if the same were suffered with a view to defeat the right of the plaintiff, who was having bonafide claim over the property of Dasondha Singh. Thus, according to learned counsel for the defendant, the finding recorded by the Courts below that the aforesaid two decrees are not legal and binding on the right of the plaintiff is wrong.