HEM SINGH AND ANOTHER versus HARNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 44 · Decided: 01-04-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
April 1. 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
. HEM SINGH A,ND J\.NOTHER 
v .. 
HARNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER. 
[B. K. MuKHERJEA, V1"1AN BosE, GHULAM HASAN and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.) 
Custom-Adoption-Gill lats 
of 
village 
Gillantuali 
District 
Gurdaspur (Punjab )~Adoption of .a collateral of 8th degree-Vali· 
dity of. 
Held, that under the Customary Law of Gurdaspur 
District 
(Punjab) applicable to the Gill Jats of village Gillanwali, the adop-
tion of a collateral of the 8.th decree is not invalid~ 
' 
The ~nswer to 
question 
9 in Customary Law 0£ the Gurdas~ · 
ptir District that "the adOption· of near collateral only" should be 
recognised is not mandatory but directory. 
· 
· · Under the Customary Law in the Punjab, adoption is secular 
in· character, the object being to appoint an heir and the rules relat~ 
ing to ceremonies and to preferences in selection have 
to · be held 
to_ be 
directory and adoptions made 
in disregard of them are not 
invalid. 
' 
' 
., 
fiwan Singh and Another v. Pal Singh and Anothe,. (22 P.R. 
1913 at p. 84); Sant Singh v. Mula and Others (44 P.R. 1913 at p. 
173); Charan Singh v. Buta Singh and Others (A.LR. 1935 I.:.ah. 83) : 
Jowala v. Dewan Singh (166 l.C. 237); and Basant Singh 
and 
Others v . . Brij Raj Saran Singh (I.L.R. 57 AlL 494) referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : ·. Civil· 
Appeal 
No. 124 of.1951. 
Appeal by Special Leave granted· by His Majesty in 
Council, dated the . 30th October, 1945, from the Judg-
ment and Decree, dated the 12th July, 1944, of the 
High Court of Judicature, at Lahore in Civil Regular 
Second 
Appeal No. 450 of 1942, against the Judg-
ment and Decree, dated the 14th .January, 
1~2, of 
the Court of the District Judge, Gurdaspur, in Appeal 
No. 91 
of 
1941, 
arising from 
the 
Judgment and 
Decree, 
dated 31st July, 
1941, 
of 
the Court of 
Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurda51Pur, in Suit No. 80 
.of 1940. 
G. S. Vohra and Harbans 
Singh for 
the appel-
lants. 
( 
~· 
Achhru Ram (!. B. Dadachanji and R. N. Sachthey, 
~ 
with him) for respondents. 
· 
-
• 
-
' 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
45 
1954; 
April 1. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GHULAM HASAN J.-This 
is an 
appeal 
by 
special 
leave granted by the Privy 
Council . against the judg-
ment and decree dated July 
12, 
1944, 
of a Division 
Bench of the High Court. at Lahore passed in second 
appeal confirming the dismissal of the appellants' 
suit 
~ concurrently by the trial .Court and the Court of the 
.. 
District Judge, Gurdaspur. 
The two appellants are ·admittedly the first cousins 
of the respondent, Harnam Singh, and belong to village 
Gillanwali, Tahsil .Batala, District Gurdaspur. 
Gurmej 
Singh, respondent No. 2, is a collateral of Harnam Singh 
in the 8th degree. The appellants sued for a declara-
tion that the deed of 
adoption executed by Harnam 
~ Singh on July, . 30, 
1940, adopting Gurmej Singh was 
invalid and could not 
affect 
the 
reversionary 
rights 
of the appellants after the death. of Harnam Singh. 
The appellant's case was that under the Customary 
Law of Gurdaspur District applicable to the Gill 
Jats 
of village Gillanwali, Harnam Singh could only adopt a 
"near collateral" 
and Gurmej Singh being 
a 
distant 
. < 
collateral his adoption was invalid. The defence was a 
denial of the plaintiffs' claim. 
Both . the trial Judge 
and the District Judge on appeal hdd that the factum 
and the validity of the adoption were fully established. 
In second appeal Trevor Harries C. J. and Mahajan J. 
(as he then was) held that there was sufficient evidence 
9f the factum of adoption as furnished by the deed and 
the subsequent conduct of Harnam Singh. 
They held 
that all that was necessary under the custom to consti~ 
f 
tute an adoption was the expression of a clear intention 
on the part of the adoptive father to adopt the boy 
concerned as his son and this intention was clearly 
manifested here by 
the execution and registration of 
the deed of adoption coupled with the public declara-
tions 
and treatru.ents as adopted son. 
Upon the legal 
validity of the adoption the High Court found that the 
answer to Question 9 of the Riwaj-i-am of Gurdaspur 
,_ 
District of the year 1913 laying down that the adoption 
of "near collaterals 
only" 
was 
recognised 
was 
not 
mandatory. The High Court relied in support of their 
1954 
Hem Singh and 
Another 
v. 
Harnam Singh 
and Another 
Ghulam Hasan J. 
1954 
Hem Singh and 
Another 
v. 
Harnam Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.