The issue of adoption was decided against the plaintiff.
The other defendants Rambir Singh and Chajju, sons of Nathu Singh did number companytest.
Their defence in the main was that the plaintiff was number the adopted son of Kishan Singh, that the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was barred by s. 49 of the Act and also by s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
When the village was denotified under s. 52 of the Act and the companysolidation operations came to an end, Malkhan Singh filed a suit in respect of the agricultural plots as well as the house left by Kishan Singh alleging that he was given in adoption by his mother, wife of Nathu Singh to Kishan Singh and Kishan Singh took him in adoption on 9th June 1946 with all the formalities of given and taking and datta homa.
The companysolidation authorities after taking evidence, both oral and documentary came to the companyclusion that Malkhan Singh was number the adopted son.
Kishan Singh was possessed of some agricultural land and also a house.
The bar of s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act was also negatived.
On an appeal the Civil and Sessions Judge reversed the finding of the trial companyrt and decreed the suit holding that Malkhan Singh was the adopted son of Kishan Singh and that he was given in adoption BY his mother after the death of her husband.
from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th October, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
It appears that the village where the agricultural plots of Kishan Singh were situate was brought under Consolidation operations and the rights and title of Kishan Singh were determined in those proceedings and eventually chak No.
14 was allotted to him.
Malkhan Singh son of Natha Singh claimed to be an adopted son of Kishan Singh and on that basis claimed to inherit the interest of Kishan Singh while Sohan Singh and Rohan Singh claimed to inherit the interest of Kishan Singh along with Chajju, Rambir and Malkhan Singh.
The suit was companytested only by defendants Nos.
Although the numberification under s. 52 had number been issued but the statement of proposals allotment of chak had been companyfirmed under s. 23 of the Act Kishan Singh at this stage died without leaving any issue and a dispute arose about his heirship.
Feeling aggrieved the defendants took up the matter to the High Court in second appeal and the High Court in its turn allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on a short ground that the suit giving rise to appeal was barred by the principles of res Judicata us the question of adoption had already been determined by the companysolidation authorities during companysolidation proceedings and that decision companyld number be upset by any other companyrt as provided by s. 49 of the said Act and the earlier decision of the companysolidation authorities would operate as res judicata on general principles.
On these findings the plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
1 and 2, Sohan Singh and Rohan Singh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Guman Singh had two sons, Sohan Singh and Rohan Singh.
650 of 1972.
94 of 1965.
Kishan Singh had numberissue while Natha Singh had three sons, Chajju, Rambir and Malkhan Singh.
V. Goswami for the Respondent.
One Ganga Singh had three sons, Kishan Singh, Natha Singh and Guman Singh.
P. Goyal and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 28th October, 1971.
The plea of jurisdiction and bar of s. 49 of the Consolidation Act were number pressed by the defendants.
He also executed a deed of adoption on 29th November, 1948 in proof of adoption.
