1961 (3) TMI 132 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds adoption validity in ancestral land dispute.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions in a case concerning the validity of adoption and ancestral land. The District Judge found the ... - Issues:1. Validity of adoption of the plaintiff by Kartar Singh deceased.2. Ancestral nature of the land in suit.3. Interpretation of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of adoption of the plaintiff by Kartar Singh deceasedThe trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding no valid adoption of the plaintiff and stating it was against the custom of Jullundur District. However, the District Judge on appeal held that the plaintiff had been adopted as a son and appointed as an heir by Kartar Singh. The District Judge did not delve into the validity of the adoption, as the properties left by Kartar Singh were not alleged to be ancestral. This decision was based on the provisions of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, which restricts the contesting of alienation or appointment of an heir to non-ancestral property based on custom.Issue 2: Ancestral nature of the land in suitThe District Judge's decision was influenced by the fact that the land left by Kartar Singh was not claimed to be ancestral, thus barring the defendants from contesting any alienation or appointment of an heir. The High Court also noted the confusion in the pleadings regarding the ancestral nature of the land, emphasizing that without a specific plea on this issue, it cannot be considered to have arisen from the pleadings. The defendants failed to provide clarity on the custom that would invalidate the adoption of the plaintiff, and no specific issue was framed regarding this custom, leading to a lack of definitive pleading and evidence on the matter.Issue 3: Interpretation of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920The defendants argued that their plea regarding the plaintiff's adoption not aligning with the custom of Jullundur District should be considered under Section 6 of the Act. However, the courts held that objecting to the appointment of an heir based on custom requires specific pleading and proof of the land being ancestral, which the defendants failed to establish. The courts relied on legal precedents to support their interpretation that vague allegations in the written statement do not fulfill the requirements of pleading under the Act.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The courts emphasized the importance of clear pleading and evidence on matters of custom and ancestral property to uphold the legal requirements set forth in the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920.