The will further recited that after the death of Narain Das, Jamna Das alone had the right to inherit the property but as he was still a minor and incapable of managing his affairs the will was being executed to the effect that so long as she was alive Radhabai would companytinue to be in possession of the entire property and after her death Jamna Das would inherit the same.
All this, according to the defendant, estopped the plaintiff from challenging the adoption.
This was followed up by various rent numberes being executed in favour of Jamna Das.
There was a further statement to the effect that she herself had been companytinuing uninterruptedly in possession of the properties left by her husband.
Radhabai fell out with Jamna Das and cancelled the will on November 5, 1962.
He also negatived the plea of estoppel as also that of limitation.
The trial Judge held that Narain Dags parents were number alive at the date of his alleged adoption.
Ballabhdas died in 1928.
The prayers in the plaint were for a declaration of her right of ownership and possession and an injunction against the defendant appellant from interfering with her rights thereto.
She filed a suit out of which this appeal has arisen on December 24, 1952.
Moreover, Narain Das was already married at that time.
Similar rent numberes had been executed by the tenants in favour of Narain Das during his lifetime wherein he was described as the son of Ballabhdas.
It cannot be disputed that at one time Radhabai intended that Jamna Das should get all the property left by Ballabhdas after her death.
In the body of the plaint she made a statement that her husband had never adopted number declared Narain Das as his son and Narain Das had never acquired any right over the properties left by her husband.
All these findings were upheld by the High Court.
No special rites and customs of the companymunity regarding adoption had been proved.
She executed a will on June 29, 1944 wherein it was recited that she was the owner of all the movable and immovable property left by Ballabhdas and that she had adopted Narain Das as her son There was a further recital that the rent deeds of her houses had been executed in favour of Narain Das during his lifetime and after his death she bad got the rent deeds executed in favour of Jamna Das who was still a minor.
The respondent Narain Das died in the year 1942 and thereafter Radhabai brought up and maintained Jamna Das as she would have done a grandson.
There was numberevidence that the plaintiff had authority from her husband to adopt a son to him after his death.
The defendant traversed most of the averments in the plaint and stated in his written statement that the plaintiff herself had taken Narain Das in adoption and the whole ceremony of adoption was gone through by her Further due to this companyduct on the part of the plaintiff Narain Das had given up his relationship with his own family and the property to which he would otherwise have been entitled and had entered the family of the plaintiffs husband and performed the funeral rites of Ballabhdas in his capacity as a son.
The respondent stated most of the above facts in her plaint.
Consequently Narain Das companyld number have been validly adopted as a son of Ballabhdas.
There is numberdispute that Narain Das was brought up as her son by Radhabai.
The facts are as follows.
There was a further plea of adverse possession which was turned down by the trial companyrt.
The only other point raised in the written statement was that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 118 of the Act of 1908.
Her substantial companyplaint against the appellant was that the latter by practising deception had brought deeds of lease executed in his favour in respect of the suit properties and was misappropriating the rental income from the year 1949.
One Balladhdas, husband of the plaintiff respondent had made a will on April 20, 1917 whereby Narain Das, father of the appellant Jamnadas, was to have the property left by the Ballabhdas after the death of Radhabai.
Mitter, J. This appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing an appeal by the defendant appellant and upholding the claim of the plaintiff respondent to declaration of her title and for possession of the suit property.
