RAIMATI SAHUANI versus PANKA.JA SAHU (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 08-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAIMA TI SAHUANI 
v. 
PANKA.JA SAHU (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, .J.J.] 
Suit : 
Suit for title and possession-Plaintiff claiming father's proper-
C ty-Defe.ndant's claim based on adoption-Documentary evidence for 
claim-Examination of-Matter remitted to High Court. 
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for 
possession of property belonging to her father. The respondents who were 
in possession of the disputed property based their claim on the ground that 
D 
the first respondent-defendant was the adopted son of appellant's father. 
E 
F 
The Trial Court accepted the plea of adoption and dismissed the suit. The 
High Court atlirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. In appeal to this 
Court it was contended for the appellant that the case requires reconsidera-
tion because there was no documentary evidence to establish that the first 
respondent-defendant was the adopted s,on of appellant's father. On the 
other hand, there was voluminous documentary evidence in proof of the 
appellant's case but the High Court has not adverted to the same. 
AlloWing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD : It is a matter to be examined in detail. This Court is not 
•nclined to go into the facts in this case. It is appropriate that the High 
Court should dispose the appeal afresh after giving hearing to both the 
parties and decide the matter as per law. [ 448"C] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8377 of 
1995. 
From the .Judgment and Order dated 3.12.92 of the Orissa High 
Court in F.A. No. 106 of 1977. 
H 
Vinoo Bhagat, for the Appellant. 
446 
R. SAHUANI v. P. SAHU 
447 
R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that in spite B 
of his repeated letters written to the respondents he did not receive any 
response. On April 21, 1995, we had given four weeks time to the counsel 
for the respondents at his request. Today also, he has repeated the same 
and requested another chance but we decline to grant further adjournment. 
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant-
plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title and for possession. Her case 
c 
is found on the undisputed fact that her father Urddhaba is owner of 88 
acres of the plaint property. She claims that the respondents are. not 
concerned with the property in whatsoever manner but remained in pos-
session. The respondents set up the plea of adoption. Admittedly, the D 
predecessor in interest of respondents is brother's son of the Urddhaba. 
The trial court accepted the plea of adoption and dismissed the suit. In 
First Appeal 196/77, by judgment and decree dated December 3, 1992, the 
learned single Judge of the High Court confirmed the decree. Hence, this 
appeal by special leave. 
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent 
in the written statement pleaded that Urddhaba was 50 years old when his 
first wife Mahadei died and his second wife had given birth to one daughter 
E 
and one son who died later. He had requested his natural father, the 
defendant, to give adoption. As a result he became the adoptive son of F 
Urddhaba. The first respondent claimed that he was practically adopted 
when he was one year old child and remained in the adopted family. The 
adopted father Urddhaba died in 1938. As a consequence, he claimed to 
have succeeded to the father's estate as a sole son. Counsel for the 
appellant contended that this plea is clearly unsustainable when it is taken 
note of is that the natural father had lost five children and the defendant G 
being the only son, if would be highly improbable that the natural father 
would lose his only son and give him in adoption to Urddhaba. He also 
contended that from 1912 till 1950, there is no documentary evidence to 
establish that the defendant was an adopted son of Urddhaba. The only 
entry is in the electoral roll of 1950 in which his claim to be the son of H 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C'.R. 
A 
Urddhaba, which could be at any rate be a self created document. Reasons 
given by the courts below are clearly unsustainable. He has drawn our 
attention to the statement that Urddhaba was 35 years old at the time of 
adoption in the year 1912 and that was clearly show that Urddhaba would 
not be inclined to tak

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.