Adopted Son’s Bid For Entire Property Fails: P&H HC Upholds Will Leaving Widow One Shop For Maintenance, Rest To Biological Son

In brief

The question

Whether the finding that Varinder Kumar was Girdhari Lal’s biological son warranted interference in the cross-objections.

The court held

The High Court upheld the first appellate court’s findings on Varinder’s parentage, Sanjiv’s adoption, and the parties’ rights under the will.

It also directed

It held that Sanjiv was not entitled to parts D and E and dismissed the cross-objections.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The dispute concerned property No. 4677, comprising parts A–E.

Girdhari Lal’s registered gift deed of 1959 dealt with parts A and B; his 1982 will referred to part C as property No. 3 and parts D and E as property No. 4.

¶ 6

Bhagwan Dai sued for a declaration and injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit; on appeal, the Additional District Judge held that Varinder Kumar was Girdhari Lal’s biological son, upheld the will, and found Sanjiv Kumar to be Bhagwan Dai’s adopted son.

¶ 5–8

It declared Bhagwan Dai owner of part C, which had been provided for her maintenance, while parts D and E vested under the will in Varinder.

¶ 5–8

Sanjiv’s cross-objections challenged, among other matters, the finding on Varinder’s parentage and the limitation of his entitlement to part C. The High Court considered only the cross-objections after the Supreme Court’s order concerning the impleadment of subsequent purchasers.

¶ 5–8, 14–16

02Issues

i.Whether the finding that Varinder Kumar was Girdhari Lal’s biological son warranted interference in the cross-objections.

¶ 9–10

ii.Whether the finding that Sanjiv Kumar was adopted by Bhagwan Dai was open to challenge by the subsequent purchasers in these cross-objections.

¶ 11–13

iii.Whether the will entitled Sanjiv, as Bhagwan Dai’s successor, to the whole of property No. 4677, rather than only part C.

¶ 14–16

03Law Applied

The court relied on the terms of the registered gift deed and the will to determine the allocation of the disputed property: the deed covered parts A and B, while the will gave Bhagwan Dai a maintenance-related interest in part C and dealt separately with parts D and E.

¶ 6, 15–16

It also applied the principle that factual findings based on appraisal of evidence do not warrant interference where no question of law arises.

¶ 10

Sections 7 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, were referred to in connection with the adoption; however, the court did not decide the purchasers’ argument under section 11 because adoption was not an issue in the cross-objections and the purchasers’ rights were confined to the property they had bought.

¶ 12–13

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 7 Section 11

04Reasoning

The court found that the concurrent findings on Varinder’s parentage rested on evidence including a school register and a congratulatory letter from Bhagwan Dai, and disclosed no question of law warranting interference.

¶ 9–10

It declined to reopen the adoption finding because the purchasers had bought only parts D and E and could not use the cross-objections to challenge a finding affecting property they had not purchased.

¶ 13

On the will’s language, the court found that only part C had been provided to Bhagwan Dai for maintenance; parts D and E were not so provided and were to vest in Varinder under the will. Accordingly, Sanjiv’s claim to the entire property was unsupported.

¶ 15–16