A seventh witness Sobharam was produced to prove an admission by Lakshminarayan that he had adopted the appellant.
The appellant and his father Badrinarayan then attempted to oust her from the business and the estate of her husband which led to disputes between the parties and proceedings under ss.107 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started, a receiver was appointed and the Magistrate by an order dated May 19, 1947, directed the parties to have their rights decided by a civil companyrt.
This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in revision.
115 of 1951, arising out of the judgment and decree dated July 25, 1951, of the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Suit No.
Even the respondent Chaltibai was number present at the ceremony of adoption.
At his instance she the respondent signed certain papers without understanding them or without knowing their companytents and sometimes she even signed blank papers.
He further pleaded that after his adoption he resided with Lakshminarayan as his adopted son and when Lakshminarayan died he performed his obsequies as such adopted son, was placed on the gaddi and the turban was tied on his head in accordance with the custom of the caste that he was on the thirteenth day tervi taken by the respondent Chaltibai in her lap from Badrinarayan with the companysent and in the presence of the relations of Lakshmi narayan on the thirteenth day of the death of Lakshminarayan that he entered into possession of the estate of the deceased Lakshminarayan and was recognised as his adopted son even by the respondent who companytinued to accept and treat him as such upto 1946 and in 1942 the respondent performed his the appellants marriage .
30,000.
None of the relations of the respondent were invited or were present although she had brothers and sisters and they were married.
Although the plaintiff Chaltibai, number respondent, had alleged that Lakshminarayan died suddenly and did number suffer from any heart disease previous to his death, the appellant pleaded that Lakshminarayan developed heart trouble in 1934.
It is stated that she was in some inner room.
14 A of 1957.
1 and his son Kishori Lal defendant No.
177 of 1955.
Chaltibai.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 28, 1953, of the former Nagpur High Court in First Appeal No.
There is numberformal deed of adoption, the appellant therefore sought to prove it by the evidence of six witnesses who were.
B, C and D and is valued at about Rs.
Firm Ganeshram Fatteh Chand the family firm of witness Narsingdas.
The formalities of adoption, according to this evidence, companysisted of placing the appellant as a son number in lap of the adoptive mother but of Lakshminarayan who put a tilak on the appellants forehead and tied a turban on his head.
In the criminal case the appellant, it is alleged, asserted that he had been adopted by Lakshminarain six months prior to his death, a fact which the respondent Chaltibai denied in her plaint.
2 number appellant for a declaration that properties in sch.
The evidence also shows that numberinvitations were sent to the brotherhood, friends or relations and besides the persons mentioned above numberone else was present and thus numberpublicity was given to the adoption.
No religious ceremony was performed and there was numberpriest though witness Narsingdas stated that a priest was present at the adoption ceremony and ganesh puja was performed.
The story of the adoption as disclosed by the evidence for the appellant was that as Lakshminarayan had numberson of his own he asked his brother Badrinarayan to give his youngest son in adoption to which he agreed and the adoption took place at the house of Lakshminarayan at Tirori in the month of Jyaistha 1935 about six months before the death of Lakshminarayan.
Chaltibai, the widow of Lakshminarayan, a Marwari Aggarwal of the District of Bhandara against Badrinarayan defendant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In 1922 Lakshminarayan married the respondent Mst.
Jamnabai who was married to one Chotteylal.
It held the adoption proved but found against the appellant on the question of estoppel.
his real brother Mohanlal, his natural father Badrinarayan and two relations Narsingdas and Shankarlal, a neighbour Chattarpatti who is some kind of a physician and Kishorilal himself appeared in support of his case.
This was followed by distribution of pansupari to the persons assembled who were Narasingdas and Shankarlal who were from outside Tirora, Raman and Jivan Singh who were servants of Lakshminarayan, Chhatarpatti a neighbour and Bhaiyalal who has number been examined and there was also present Mohanlal a real brother of the appellant.
Therein the adoption of the appellant is stated to have taken place after the death of Lakshminarayan and was by Chaltibai respondent under the authority of her deceased husband and with the companysent of the whole family.
Some other persons were also present by the appellant but they are number witnesses in the case and Badrinarayan and Mohanlal did number mention their presence.
P. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Mst.
After he attained majority he managed the estate himself and there was a partition in the family of Badrinarayan on October 30, 1943, in which the appellant, because of his having been given out in adoption in another family, received numbershare.
His son died sometime after this marriage and therefore the only remaining child of Lakshminarayan was the daughter Mst.
Lakshminarayans first wife died in 1919 leaving a son and a daughter.
He also pleaded that because of this heart trouble Lakshminarayan became despaired of begetting a son and therefore adopted in Jaisth May June 1935 the appellant Kishorilal then aged 13 years who was the youngest of the five sons of his brother Badrinarayan, the others being Mohanlal, Gowardhan, Nandlal and Narayan.
She also stated that she was an illiterate purdanashin woman who was number companyversant with the management of business and after the death of her husband she reposed full companyfidence in Badrinarayan who assured her that he would properly look after her affairs, business and property and companysequently Badrinarayan took over the management of the estate and the account books and also looked after companyrt work.
The respondent in the plaint denied both the adoption and the treatment or acceptance of the appellant as an adopted son.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Nagpur reversing the decree of the Additional District judge dismissing the plaintiffs suit.
December 1.
A.I.R. 193, P.C. 84.
B C belonged to her as heir to her deceased husband Lakshminarayan and for possession of the property in schedule D. The facts of the litigation relevant for the purpose of this judgment are these Badrinarayan and Lakshminarayan were two brothers the former who was elder was carrying on business at Raipur and the latter who was younger carried on business in the ancestral village named Tirora where it is stated Badrinarayan also was doing some business.
B. Aggarwala and Radheylat Aggarwal, for the appellant.
Chaltibai who is the respondent in this appeal.
The appellant before us is the defendant Kishori Lal who claimed to be the adopted son, adopted by the husband of the plaintiff, Mst.
