1961 (3) TMI 132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and secured possession over them by successfully inducing the tenants to pay rent to them. 2. The defendants accepted the allegation that Kartar Singh owned and possessed the land in suit and further alleged: "Kartar Singh deceased never adopted the plaintiff as his son; nor is this admitted that the plaintiff was the sister's son of Kartar Singh; nor yet was he ever taken in the lap in the presence of the Baradri; nor were any ceremonies of adoption performed; nor could the plaintiff according to the Riwaj-i-am of District Jullundur or Riwaj-i-am of Punjab State be adopted as son; and nor did Kartar Singh deceased ever treat him as his son." 3. On these pleadings the trial court framed the following issues: (i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pleadings of the parties are so confused that it is impossible to find out that the defendants were either claiming that they were within five degrees of the common ancestor or that they were claiming that the land was ancestral, and in a case such as this where no specific plea has been taken as to the ancestral nature of the property it cannot be said that that issue arose on the pleadings." 8. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred by the defendants. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the contention of the defendants in the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff could not be adopted as son according to the Riwaj-i-am of District Jullundur or Riwaj-i-am of Punjab State, sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the High Court cannot be said to be wrong. In fact, this view is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 14, CPC, and what was held by the Judicial Committee in Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran AIR 1930 PC 571. 12. It may further be observed that the appellants did not, in their written statement, state what the custom was and why the adoption of the plaintiff was against that custom. No issue was framed with respect to the specific custom which could invalidate the adoption of the plaintiff. The mere fact that the issues as framed did involve the consideration of the validity of the adoption and the ancestral nature of the land in suit will not clothe the vague allegation in the written statement with the definiteness of t....