Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned succession to the property of Nathu, a blind, unmarried, and issueless Jat of Ludhiana district, who was the last male holder of about 16 bighas of land and a house in village Mohanpur. Inder Singh, a collateral nephew of the fifth degree, claimed that he was validly adopted by Nathu on March 24, 1946, before the village panchayat by distributing gur, and that a deed of adoption was executed and registered the next day. Gujar Singh, a nearer collateral, contested the adoption, and after Nathu's death on October 27, 1949, got the property mutated in his name. Inder Singh then sued for possession as the adopted son. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the story of adoption before the panchayat was not substantiated and that, under customary rules, a valid adoption required continuous course of conduct showing treatment as son, which was absent. The District Judge allowed the first appeal, finding that declaration before the panchayat was proved and that short cohabitation was sufficient; he also held that cancellation of deed was ineffective. On second appeal, the Punjab High Court reversed, holding that customary adoption among Jats of Ludhiana required two essential elements: intention to appoint heir and act of association as father and son; the short period of about six weeks cohabitation was insufficient to prove general treatment as son. The High Court restored the trial court's dismissal. The Supreme Court granted certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on paragraph 35 of Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law, arguing that a formal declaration before the brotherhood was sufficient manifestation of appointment, and that adoption once made could not be revoked. The respondents contended that the Riwaj-i-am of Ludhiana District required both declaration and general treatment as son, and that evidence showed repudiation, not treatment. The Court considered the authoritative Riwaj-i-am of Ludhiana District, which stated that adoption required a declaration of adoption and general treatment as a son, and that a mere declaration or execution of deed without precedent or subsequent treatment was insufficient. The Court referred to several decisions including Gurbachna v. Bujha, Baj Singh v. Pratap Singh, Chhajju v. Mehr Singh, Chanan Singh v. Buta Singh, and Kishen Singh v. Taru, all supporting the requirement of treatment. In the present case, Nathu left Inder Singh a few weeks after execution of the deed, cancelled the deed within five months, and repudiated any association with him as son. Therefore, the second formality of general treatment was lacking. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision that the appellant was not validly adopted.
Headnote
A) Customary Law - Adoption Formalities - Customary Adoption Among Jats of Ludhiana District - Constitution of India, Article 133; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 109, 110 - The court examined whether the appellant was validly adopted by one Nathu under customary rules prevalent among Jats of Ludhiana district. The Riwaj-i-am of Ludhiana District recorded that adoption requires a declaration of adoption and general treatment of the appointed heir as a son. The adopter declared adoption before village panchayat and executed a deed, but left the appellant after a few weeks, cancelled the deed within five months, and repudiated the association. Held that a mere declaration or execution of a deed of adoption unaccompanied by precedent or subsequent treatment as son is insufficient; since the second formality was lacking, the adoption was invalid.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was validly adopted by Nathu in accordance with the rules of customary adoption prevalent amongst Jats of the Ludhiana district in Punjab.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's decision that the appellant was not validly adopted. It held that under the customary law of Ludhiana district, a valid adoption among Jats requires both a declaration of adoption and general treatment of the appointed heir as a son; the second formality was lacking as the adopter had repudiated the adoption and did not treat the appellant as his son.
Law Points
- Customary adoption among Jats of Ludhiana requires two formalities: declaration of adoption and general treatment of the appointed heir as a son
- mere declaration or execution of a deed of adoption without precedent or subsequent treatment as son is insufficient
- adoption once validly made cannot be revoked
- the statement of customary law in the Riwaj-i-am of Ludhiana District is authoritative
- Rattigan's Digest paragraph 35 states a general rule
- but the specific customary rule of the district prevails
