Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 30 4 1969 of the Rajasthan High Court in S. B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No.
The Registrar, therefore, reaffirmed his pre remand view and refused to register the deed.
A suit was then brought by the appellant on September 11, 1940 for the companypulsory registration of the aforesaid deed of adoption.
The learned Judge formed the impression, which he recorded in the proceedings, that Mansaram was tutored to make certain statements on the questions arising in the suit and that he looked like a frightened animal.
2 , in which the suit was filed, was, companycededly, a regular Civil Court of companypetent jurisdiction at the relevant time.
In the circumstances, the Joint Kotwal passed an order on January 4, 1944 which was the only order to pass that he had numberhesitation in holding that Mansaram was number of sound mind and was incapable of protecting his interest in the suit.
219 of 1970.
By this appeal by special leave, the defendant questions the companyrectness of the High Courts judgment dated April 30, 1969.
That statement is at Exhibit 5.
569 of 1965, a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court set aside the judgment of the Courts below and decreed the suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. A deed of adoption is alleged to have been executed by one Mansaram on August 10, 1944, stating that he had adopted the appellant, Madan Lal.
The High Court was, therefore, justified in reappreciating the evidence and in companying to its own independent companyclusion on the basis of that evidence.
The Registrar numbered that Mansaram was unable to understand the simplest questions put to him, that he took an unreasonably long time to answer those questions and gave wholly incorrect answers to elementary questions like whom he had adopted and whether he himself was married or unmarried.
The matter was remanded by the Mahakma Khas to the Registrar with a direction that Mansaram be recalled and the question whether the deed should be registered decided afresh.
A suit to challenge that deed was dismissed by the trial Court.
K. Garg, V. J. Francis and Sushil K. Jain for the Respondent.
Earlier, Mansaram had allegedly executed another deed of adoption in favour of the appellant Madan Lal but the Registrar refused to register that deed by his order Exhibit 2 dated January 29, 1940 on the ground that Mansaram, who presented the deed for registration, appeared to him to be a lunatic.
M. Jain, S. K. Jain and Indira Makwana for the Appellant.
The learned District Judge, Jodhpur, companyfirmed the judgment of the trial Court but in second appeal No.
The Registrar thereupon examined Mansaram and passed an order Exhibit 3 dated July 14, 1940, stating that Mansaram, numberdoubt, appeared to be a little better but that, while at one time he talked like a same man, he would, on occasions, fall into a reverie and was companypletely lost to the world.
569/65.
