it also says that this was done before the brotherhood of the village that maghi singh had adopted him as his son according to custom that he was his legal heir and representative that he shall be owner and possessor of his entire property and that all the rites regarding his death shall he performed by the adopted son.
as the learned single judge as well as the division bench have concurrently held that the ceremony of giving and taking did take place it is unnecessary to go into that questions the deed of adoption refer to the giving and taking.
in the plaint it was alleged that there was numberceremony of adoption performed number was the appellant treated as maghi singhs son.
it was also alleged that maghi singh was number in his senses when he executed the adoption deed.
a division bench of the punjab haryana high companyrt hearing the letters patent appeal against this judgment held that there was numberevidence of intention to transfer the appellant from his natural family to maghi singhs family and allowed the appeal.
appeal by special leave from the judgment decree dated the 12th april 1967 of the punjab haryana high companyrt in p.a.
1 i to 1 vi .
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1888 of 1967.
this appeal is by special leave granted by this companyrt.
after his death anumberher brother of maghi singh the 1st respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises questioning the adoption and claiming a half share in maghi singhs property.
in second appeal justice khanna of the punjab high companyrt as the then was held that the giving and taking bad taken place and rejected an argument that even if there was the act of giving and taking it was number with the intent to transfer the appellant from the family of his birth to that of maghi singh because maghi singh was governed by customary law.
number 6 of 1963.
bishan narain s. k. mehta and k. r. nagaraja for the appellant.
maghi singh also executed a deed of adoption.
the suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt but the first appellate companyrt held that the ceremony of giving and taking had number taken place and allowed the appeal.
hardayal hardy harbans singh and gautam goswami for respondents number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by alagiriswami j. the appellant was adopted by maghi singh his grand fathers brother.
