RAM DAS ALIAS RAM SURAJ versus SMT. GANDIABAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
RAM DAS ALIAS RAM SURAJ 
A 
v . 
SMT. GANDIABAI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: Section I 00 : 
Second appeal-Interference with findings of fact by first appellate 
court by High Court-Finding of fact recorded-By first appellate court 
on reappreciation of evidence that plaintiff was not adopted by his stepfather C 
before remarriage of plaintiffs mother with his stepfather-However, first 
appellate court did not consider circumstance of incurring expenses by 
stepfather on occasion of marriage of plaintiff's sister while deciding 
question of plaintiff's adoption-Held: It had to be shown that finding of 
fact by the first appellate court was affected by any of errors as contemplated D 
by S. 100(/)(a), (b) & (c)-Such a pure finding offoct neither contrary to 
law nor to any usage having force of/aw, nor vitiated by failure to determine 
any 1naterial issue of la1v or usage, nor vitiated by substantial error or 
defect in the procedure provided by CPC or by any other law for the time 
being in force which might possibly have produced error or defect in the 
decision on this queslion---Tl111s none oflhe grounds contemplated by Section E 
100(/)(a), (b) and (c) existed on record of the case-However, non-
consideralion of circumstance of incurring marriage expenses by stepfalher 
lo/ally, irrelevant of deciding question of plaintiffs adoption-Since no 
material evidence having a direct impact on the decision of the case on 
merits was ignored by the first appellate court as final court of facts while 
arriving at the finding of plaintiff's adoption, High Court no/ legally justified F 
in inte1fering with clear finqling of fact arrived al by first appellate court 
in favour of plaintiff on issue of adoption and first appellate court ',·finding 
that plaintiff was not adopted mus/ be lreated to have been finally established 
on record-Hindu Law-Adoption. 
The appellant--plaintitrs grandfather died leaving behind two 
sons, the respondent-defendant and the plaintitrs father. The 
plaintifrs father died leaving behind the plaintiff as his son, a daughter 
and his widow. The plaintiff was six months old when his father 
died. As the plaintiff was a minor the properties after the death of 
G 
his father used to be managed by the defendant as 'Karla' of the H 
829 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A family. 
Property was thus in joint possession of the parties. After 
attaining majority plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession 
of his one half share which the defendant refused. The plaintiff, 
therefore, filed a suit against the respondent-defendant for partition 
and separation of his half share in the properties. 
B 
The defence of the defendant was three-fold. Firstly, plaintifrs 
mother got remarried and plaintiff was given in adoption to his 
stepfather before her remarriage with him and consequently plaintiff 
had ceased to belong to the family of defendant and his deceased 
father and hence he had no right, title or interest in the suit properties. 
Secondly, during the lifetime of the plaintiff's father there was 
C partition of properties and, therefore, also plaintiff had no right, 
title or interest in the suit properties. Thirdly, the defendant had 
become owner of suit properties by adverse possession. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the first appellate 
court reversed the findings of the Trial Court on the first and second 
D issues. However, the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree of 
dismissal of the suit on the third ground. 
On second appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the 
First Appellate Court on the second and third issues. However, the 
E High Court noted that the first appellate court omitted to take into 
account the circumstance that the marriage of the plaintifrs sister 
was performed not by the defendant but by the plaintifrs stepfather 
which showed that the plaintiff was adopted by the stepfather and 
on this sole ground dismissed the second appeal. Being aggrieved the 
appellant-plaintiff preferred the present appeal. 
F 
On behalf of the appellant-plaintiff it was contended 
that the High Court should not have dismissed the second 
appeal by interfering with a pure finding of fact reached by the final 
court of facts on the question of adoption as such an exercise was not 
G permissible under Section I 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
Allowing the app

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