The suit was companytested by Gujar Singh who alleged inter alia that Inder Singh was number validly adopted by Nathu in accordance with the custom prevalent amongst the Jats of Ludhiana.
The learned Judges of the High Court held that the rules of customary adoption prevalent amongst the parties required two essential elements a an intention to appoint an heir and b an act of association between the two as father and son.
The judgment being a judgment of reversal and the value of the property in dispute more than Rs.
Inder Singhs case was that he looked after Nathu since his childhood and on March 24, 1946, Nathu adopted him, according to the custom prevalent amongst them, before the village Panchayat by distributing gur jaggery and on the next day, that is, March 25, 1946, Nathu executed a deed of adoption in his favour and got it registered on the same day.
Gujar Singh died sometime after the appellate decision, and the present respondents as heirs and legal representatives of Gujar Singh carried a second appeal to the Punjab High Court.
For a, short period thereafter Nathu lived with Inder Singh.
The suit was, accordingly, dismissed.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 2, 1954, of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Regular Second Appeal No.
which was heard by the District Judge of Ludhiana.
Inder Singh then preferred an appeal.
They hold that the short period of about six weeks during which Nathu lived with the appellant after the execution of the deed of adoption was number sufficient to prove that Nathu treated Inder Singh as his future heir there was, therefore, numbersuch association as would make, the adoption valid according to the customary rules prevalentamongst the Jats of Ludhiana district.
He further found that according to the customary rules of adoption the deed of adoption companyld number have any effect unless after its execution there was a companytinuous companyrse of companyduct showing that Nathu treated Inder Singh as his son and inasmuch as there was numberevidence to show such association, Inder Singh had failed to make out his case.
The trial Judge held that the story of the alleged adoption before the village Panchayat was number substantiated and the recitals in the deed of adoption were incorrect.
Inder Singh then brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession of the property of Nathu Singh, which companysisted of about 16 bighas odd of land and a house, on the footing that he was the adopted soil of Nathu.
He was a resident, of village Mohanpur.
20,000 the High Court gave a certificate under Art.
141 of 1956.
On Nathus death Gujar Singh got the property of Nathu mutated in his name in the revenue records.
Nathu died three years after, that is on October 27, 1949.
Nathu left lnder Singh and on September 6, 1946, cancelled the deed of gift.
Achhru Ram, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION,.,
Civil Appeal No.
He was blind, number married and had numberissue.
P. Sinha and V. N. Sethi, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab on March 7, 1955.
The only question which falls for decision is whether Inder Singh, plaintiff in the companyrt of first instance and appellant herein, was validly adopted by one Nathu in accordance with the rules of customary adoption prevalent amongst Jats of the Ludhiana district in the State of Punjab.
337 of 1952.
April 10.
Nathu, the last male holder of the property in dispute, was a Jat of Ludhiana, district.
The relevant facts are these.
Then Gujar Singh, defendant in the suit , who was a nearer companylateral of Nathu, gained influence over the, latter.
Inder Singh, a resident of the same village, was his nephew by companylateral relation of the fifth degree.
