TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court restores adoption-based property ownership decree after appellate court corrected trial court's error on evidence evaluation</h1> <h3>Chandrabhan (Deceased) through L. Rs. and Ors. Versus Saraswati and Ors.</h3> Chandrabhan (Deceased) through L. Rs. and Ors. Versus Saraswati and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Adoption of the Original Plaintiff by Baliram.2. Transactions of sale by Defendant No. 1.3. Mutation of names in revenue records.4. Loan transactions and ownership.5. Use of Baliram's name by the Plaintiff.6. Specific pleadings and inconsistencies in evidence.7. Substantial question of law u/s 100 CPC.Summary:Adoption of the Original Plaintiff by Baliram:The Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan, claimed to have been adopted by his uncle Baliram. The First Appellate Court found sufficient evidence supporting the adoption, including testimonies from witnesses and the family priest, as well as documents showing Chandrabhan using Baliram's name. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit due to inconsistencies in evidence, but the First Appellate Court considered these inconsistencies natural given the 34-year gap since the adoption.Transactions of Sale by Defendant No. 1:The High Court questioned why the Plaintiff did not challenge other transactions of sale made by Defendant No. 1, Yamunabai, in respect of three agricultural lands left by Baliram. The First Appellate Court did not address this issue.Mutation of Names in Revenue Records:The High Court noted that after Baliram's death, only Defendant No. 1's name was mutated in the revenue records as Baliram's successor, not the Plaintiff's. The First Appellate Court did not consider this circumstance.Loan Transactions and Ownership:The High Court pointed out that the cooperative credit society could not have given a loan to the Plaintiff on Baliram's lands as he was not shown as the owner in the revenue records. It was Defendant No. 1 who repaid the loan. The First Appellate Court overlooked this aspect.Use of Baliram's Name by the Plaintiff:The High Court observed that the Plaintiff never used Baliram's name as his father and continued to use his natural father Rambhau's name. The First Appellate Court did not give due weight to this circumstance.Specific Pleadings and Inconsistencies in Evidence:The High Court questioned the absence of specific pleadings regarding the particulars of adoption and inconsistencies in witness evidence. The First Appellate Court found the inconsistencies natural due to the time gap and concluded that the essential requisites of adoption were established.Substantial Question of Law u/s 100 CPC:The Supreme Court held that a Second Appeal u/s 100 CPC can only be entertained on a substantial question of law. The High Court's interference with the First Appellate Court's findings was unwarranted as it involved reappreciation of evidence, which is not permissible. The High Court did not formulate any substantial question of law, and its judgment was set aside.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the First Appellate Court's judgment in favor of the Original Plaintiff was restored.
TaxTMI 