9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the trial Court but in second appeal No. 569 of 1965, a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court set aside the judgment of the Courts below and decreed the suit. By this appeal by special leave, the defendant questions the correctness of the High Court's judgment dated April 30, 1969. The principal point of controversy involved in the suit was whether Mansaram was in a fit state of mind when he executed the deed of adoption. This, substantially, is a question of fact but we find that the trial Court and the District Court wholly ignored the weight of preponderating circumstances on the record and allowed their judgments to be influenced by inconsequential matters. The High Court was, therefore, justified in reapprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction at the relevant time. A written statement was filed in that suit by one Shri Raj Narain, advocate, on behalf of Mansaram admitting the appellant's claim that he was validly adopted by Mansaram. The authority of that admission having been challenged, the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, sitting in revision, made an order Exhibit 15 dated August 16, 1941, stating that the matter did not appear to him to be absolutely clear . He observed that Mansaram claimed to be an M.A. in English though, in fact, he did not understand a simple sentence in English. The learned Chief Justice, therefore, examined the matter further and made an order Exhibit 18 dated December 4, 1941, directing that an issue be framed on the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It does not either mention, as adoption deeds generally mention, the names of persons who were present at the time of adoption. In fact, on the record of this case there is no evidence whatsoever to show when and where the adoption took place and even whether the necessary ceremonies were performed. We cannot accept the submission, though strongly pressed upon us by Shri Sobhagmal Jain who appears on behalf of the appellant, that what the plaintiff had challenged in the suit was the validity of the deed of adoption and not the factum of adoption. On a broad and careful reading of the plaint we are left in no doubt that the real drift of the plaint is that Mansaram was not in a fit state of mind at the relevant time, that no adoption could h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
