Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Reference has, however, been made to the parol evidence on the record and I may examine it as well.

26. Moolraj, D.W. 9, has stated that Mansaram wrote document Exhibit P.W. 10/1 in his presence and at his house, and that he was not a lunatic. The witness, however, admitted that Mansaram lived jointly with him for a period of about 20 years and that he (witness) himself purchased the stamp paper on which document Exhibit P.W. 10/1 was written. The witness claims that he attested it at a time when no other witness was present. Moolraj, however, admitted that there was litigation between him and the plaintiff for the last 20 or 25 years and I have no doubt that he is a highly interested witness. Besides, he had to admit during the course of the cross-examination that he was present with Mansaram when the document was presented for registration, and there is evidence to show that he was with him on every important occasion. I do not, therefore, find it possible to rely on the statement of this witness. Then there is the statement of Somdatt, D.W. 2. He also claims to have attested document, Exhibit P.W. 10/1 at the instance of Mansaram, and much to the same effect is the statement of Bal Kishan, D.W. 7.

The statement of Mr. Raj Narain, D.W. 6, is quite useless because he talked to Mansa-ram only once or twice and was hardly in a position to express any opinion about the soundness of his mind. The rest of the evidence has not been relied on before me. It would thus appear that the parol evidence of the defendant is quite unsatisfactory. At any rate it does not serve the purpose of rebutting the presumption regarding the continuance of Mansaram's unsoundness of mind and cannot be said to be strong and demonstrative evidence of recovery.

36. The above documentary evidence is quite sufficient to prove the adoption of Meghraj by his maternal grandfather Kani-ram alias Gunraj, but I shall refer to the parol evidence also.

37. Shrinath P. W. 1 is the natural father of the plaintiff. He was 81 years old when his statement was recorded on December 6, 1958, and has stated that Meghraj was taken in adoption by Gunraj before he (witness) attained the age of discretion. This shows that the adoption took place some time before 1895. Being a close relation, Shrinath had special means of knowledge on the subject and his statement that Meghraj performed the funeral rites of Gunraj and Gunraj celebrated the marriage of Meghraj's son Madhodas at his own house and the members of the "Chhangani" family participated from the paternal side in that marriage, lends support to the documentary evidence mentioned above. Then there is the statement of Daulal P. W. 5 about the adoption. He has further stated that Meghraj lived with his maternal grand-lather, and so also his sons.

39. It has to be remembered that the adoption of Meghraj took place near about 1895, while the dispute in regard to it was raised after the institution, of the present suit on May 2, 1950 i. e. some 55 years later. It has been held in somewhat similar circumstances in S. Rama Krishna Pillai v. Tirunarayana Pillai, AIR 1932 Mad 198, that every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove the adoption should be favourably entertained in such cases. While therefore this is a case in which one cannot be expected to give direct parol evidence of the adoption, the documentary evidence is quite sufficient to prove that Meghraj, grandfather of the defendant, went to adoption to his maternal grandfather Kaniram alias Gunraj Chhangani. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court committed an error in reaching a contrary decision and the error arose because, he did not correctly read documents Exs. 7 and 14 in evidence and ruled out Exs. 8 and 9 altogether. He also committed the mistake of insisting on evidence regarding the ceremony of giving and taking of the boy in adoption in the case of such an old adoption.