DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

Case analysis on
Smt. Sitabai and Anr. Vs. Ramchandra

SUBJECT

Family law-I

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Mr. Radhakrishna

Name of the Candidate: B.Himasree

Roll No. : 2018033
Semester: 3rd

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my professor,

Mr.Radhakrishna, who gave me the opportunity to do this wonderful project on
the topic (Case analysis on Smt. Sitabai and Anr. vs. Ramchandra), which
helped me understand the method of learning case analysis. I came to know
about so many new things I am really thankful.

2
 ABSTRACT

NAME: B.HIMASREE

ROLL NO: 18LLB033

Smt. Sitabai and Anr. Vs. Ramchandra is a case based on the concept of
Adoption. In this case plaintiff no.1 i.e., Sitabai is wife of the deceased husband
namely Bhagirath has adopted son namely Suresh Chandra after the
enforcement of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 [Act No.78
Of 1956]. Sitabai, after the death of her husband and before taking adoption of
son, she had illegitimate son with Dulichand who is brother of her husband.
Subsequently Dulichand died.

Now the dispute arose between the illegitimate son Ramchandra and legitimate
son Suresh Chandra on regarding possession of the joint family property.

The question in this case rose before the court was that who is entitled to
property. The right of having the possession of the joint family property lays in
whose hand was a big question in front the court.

Here joint family property goes to the heirs of the particular property. That
means the property is equally distributed among the heirs. As Bhagirath and
Dulichand are the heirs of the joint family property it should be divided among
them. But Bhagirath died in 1930, now Dulichand is the sole surviving
coparcener of the property. Ramchandra took the possession of the property
stating that Dulichand leaving a will of his house entirely to him and land has
been re-settlement to him by Jagirdar to whom the Dulichand has surrendered
the lands for lifetime.

3
In the particular case the right of claiming the property of joint family is given
to both the sons of the widow Sitabai irrespective of legitimate or illegitimate.
But Ramchandra has a right to claim the property of his father that is Dulichand
share and Suresh Chandra has a right of claiming the property of his adopted
father i.e.., Bhagirath

In further analysis of the case, Researcher deals with the reasons behind the
Petitioner, respondent contention, the reason given by the court by applying the
principle of law and related cases.

4
 SYNOPSIS

Case Name: Smt. Sitabai and Anr. Vs. Ramchandra

Citation: AIR 1970 SC 343, (1969) 2 SCC 544, 1970 2 SCR 1

Petitioner: Smt. Sitabai and Suresh Chandra

Respondent: Ramchandra

Bench: J Shah, A Grover, V Ramaswami

Acts:

 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Act 78 of 1956)

 Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 (Act no. 66 of
1950)
 Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land
Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 (Act no. 66 of 1950)

Head note: The statement of law in this case is whether the adopted son/
daughter can divest the estate which had in other prior to his/ her adoption.
What are the rights of the adopted son/ daughter in regarding the property of
his/ her adoptive mother or adoptive father? The court reasoned out by citing
and considering principles used in the different cases.

Facts: Bhagirath and Dulichand were brothers. They had a joint family house.
Bhagirath died and his wife Sitabai, who is plaintiff no.1, lived with Dulichand.
Ramchandra is their illegitimate son. Sitabai adopted plaintiff no.2 i.e. Suresh
Chandra after the Act of 1956 came into force. Later Dulichand died. Under his
will the Ramchandra got the house and he also occupied the self-acquired land

5
of Dulichand claiming to be his heir. The plaintiff’s sued in ejectment claiming
the property.

Question of law:

1. Whether the High Court was right in holding that plaintiff no. 2 Suresh
Chandra at the time of his adoption by plaintiff no. 1 did not become a
coparcener of Dulichand in the joint family properties are not?
2. Whether the adopted son get affiliated to the deceased husband of Sitabai
are not?
3. What is the effect of the adoption by Sitabai?
4. Can the adopted son claim through the husband of the adoptive mother
are not?

Cases cited in:

1. Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore 60 I.T.R. 293

(S.C.)
2. Attorney General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar, 1957 A.C.
540
3. Arukushi Narayan v. Janabai Sama Sawat, 67 B.L.R. 864.

Judgment of the Lower Court: The trial court decided all the issues in favour
of the plaintiff and A granted the plaintiffs a decree for possession with regard
to the land and the house.

Judgment of the District Court: The District Judge took the view that the will
executed by Dulichand was valid so far as half of his share in the house was

6
concerned and, therefore, defendant was entitled to claim half the share of the
house in dispute

Judgment of the High Court: the Madhya Pradesh High Court which reversed
the decree of the lower courts and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any
relief and the suit should be dismissed in its entirety. The High Court held that
plaintiff no. 2 became the son of plaintiff no. 1 in 1958 from the date of
adoption and did not obtain any coparcenary interest in the joint family
properties. The High Court thought that on the date of adoption Dulichand was
the sole coparcener and there was nobody else to take a share of his property
and plaintiff no. 2 had no concern with the coparcenary property in the hands of
Dulichand.

Judgment of the Supreme Court: The Additional District Judge was,

therefore, right in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff no. 2 declaring his
title to the agricultural lands in the village Palasia and half share of the house
situated in the village. The Additional District Judge should be restored.

7
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….3

2. SYNOPSIS………………………………………………………………...5

3. LIST OF CASES, ACTS, ABBREVIATION ………………….…...…….9

4. GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE CASE………….…………..……10

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………...........11

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………….….12

7. FAMLIY TREE DIAGRAM OF THE CASE …………………………….13

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………..……14

 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER…………………………….……14

 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT……………………………...…19
9. JUDGMENT ………………………………………………………….……20

10. RESEARCHER’S OPINION…………………………………………..…..26

8
TABLE OF CASES, ACTS, ABBREIVATION

 ACTS

i. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Act 78 of 1956)

ii. Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 (Act no. 66 of
1950)
iii. Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land
Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 (Act no. 66 of 1950)

 CASES
i. Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore 60 I.T.R. 293
(S.C.)
ii. Attorney General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar, 1957 A.C.
540
iii. Arukushi Narayan v. Janabai Sama Sawat, 67 B.L.R. 864.

 ABBREIVATION
i. V. --------------------------------------------------- versus
ii. SCC ------------------------------------------------- Supreme Court Cases
iii. AIR -------------------------------------------------- All India Reporter
iv. i.e.., -------------------------------------------------- that is
v. Bom -------------------------------------------------- Bombay

9
 GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE CASE

Subject and Court Family and Supreme court of India

Decided on Aug-20-1969
Case number Civil Appeal No. 856 of 1966

Judge J.C. Shah, Acting C.J.,; A.N. Grover and; V. Ramaswami,

JJ.
Reported in AIR1970SC343; 1969MhLJ926(SC); (1969)2SCC544;
[1970]2SCR1
Acts Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 11,
12 and 14; Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Administration
and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 -
Sections 86, 87 and 89

Appellant Smt. Sitabai and anr.

Respondent Ramchandra

Appellant Advocate M.C. Chagla and; A.K. Sen, Advs

Respondent Advocate K.A. Chitale and ; R. Gopalakrishnan, Advs.

Cases referred Arukushi Narayan v. Janabai Sama Sawat

Prior History Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree
dated September 7, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, Indore Bench in Second Appeal No. 275 of 1962--

10
FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Dulichand and Bhagirath were brothers and the properties concerned are,
according to the written statement of the defendant himself, ancestral.
Bhagirath, his wife Sitabai, Dulichand lived together. Bhagirath died in the
year 1930. The joint family property continued to retain its character in the
hands of Dulichand as the widow of Bhagirath was still alive and continued
to enjoy the right of maintenance out of the joint family properties.
2. As Bhagirath’s wife i.e.., Sitabai and Dulichand lived together, result of
living together Sitabai and Dulichand had illegitimate son namely,
Ramchandra in the year of 1935. In the year of 1958, Sitabai adopted son
namely, Suresh Chandra on March 4th. After the adoption on March 13, 1958
Dulichand died.
3. After the death of Dulichand, Ramchandra took the whole possession of the
joint property and also the house. Cause of action arose when the legitimate
son i.e.., Suresh Chandra claims the possession of joint property.
4. Suresh Chandra filed suit against Ramchandra for the ejectment of him from
the disputed properties. But Ramchandra claims that the property was re-
settled by him after Dulichand surrendered the property to Jagidar during his
lifetime. And he also claims that Dulichand had executed a will before his
death that bequest of his house entirely to him.
5. The question of law was that plaintiff no. 2 Suresh Chandra at the time of his
adoption by plaintiff no. 1 did not become a coparcener of Dulichand in the
joint family properties are not? And also the adopted son get affiliated to the
deceased husband of Sitabai are not? And what is the effect of the adoption
by Sitabai? Can the adopted son claim through the husband of the adoptive
mother are not?

11
6. The trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and A granted
the plaintiffs a decree for possession with regard to the land and the house.
7. The District Judge took the view that the will executed by Dulichand was
valid so far as half of his share in the house was concerned and, therefore,
defendant was entitled to claim half the share of the house in dispute
8. The Madhya Pradesh High Court which reversed the decree of the lower
courts and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief and the suit
should be dismissed in its entirety. The High Court held that plaintiff no. 2
became the son of plaintiff no. 1 in 1958 from the date of adoption and did
not obtain any coparcenary interest in the joint family properties. The High
Court thought that on the date of adoption Dulichand was the sole
coparcener and there was nobody else to take a share of his property and
plaintiff no. 2 had no concern with the coparcenary property in the hands of
Dulichand.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES:

1. Whether the High Court was right in holding that plaintiff no. 2 Suresh
Chandra at the time of his adoption by plaintiff no. 1 did not become a
coparcener of Dulichand in the joint family properties are not?
2. Whether the adopted son get affiliated to the deceased husband of Sitabai are
not?
3. What is the effect of the adoption by Sitabai?
4. Can the adopted son claim through the husband of the adoptive mother are
not?

12
FAMILY TREE DIAGRAM OF THE CASE:
BROTHERS
DULICHAND
BHAGIRATH

SITABAI

ADOPTED SON

SURESH CHANDRA RAMCHANDRA

13
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

1) According to the Petitioner, the adoption made by Sitabai is valid.

“Section 6 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with
the requisites of a valid adoption and provides: No adoption shall be valid
unless-

i. The person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in
adoption.
ii. The person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so;
iii. The person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and
iv. The adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned
in this chapter.

Section 8 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 [Act No.78
Of 1956] states: Capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption- Any female
Hindu-

(a) Who is of sound mind,

(b) Who is not a minor, and

(c) Who is not married, or if married, whose marriage has been dissolved or
whose husband is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or
has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be of unsound mind, has the capacity to take a son or daughter in
adoption”.

According to the section 6 and 8 it is clear that the Petitioner has a capacity to
adopt son and the adoption made by her is valid. Section 6 of the act says the
person who has a capacity also have a right to take in adoption and under
14
section 8 of the act says the capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption.
Under section 8 the capacity to adopt is that the person is adopting must be
sound minded, who is not a minor, Who is not married, or if married, whose
marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or has completely and
finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by
a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind, has the capacity to take
a son or daughter in adoption.

2) According to the Petitioner, the decision given by High Court was not right
in holding that plaintiff no. 2 Suresh Chandra at the time of his adoption by
plaintiff no. 1 did not become a coparcener of Dulichand in the joint family
properties.

They contended the concept of Doctrine of Relation back. The Supreme Court
in the case of Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti1 over ruled the decision of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh by reasoning that under Sec 5 of the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act,1956 it is mentioned that the word “by or to a Hindu”.
The word adoption “to”, a Hindu is significant. When a widow adopts it is not
only to her but to her deceased husband also.

3) According to the Petitioner, the adopted son gets affiliated to the deceased
husband of Sitabai.

Under Sec 122 all the ties in the genitive family are served and are replaced by
ties in the adoptive family. So the section contemplates ties not only with the
person by whom the adoption is made but also with the other members of the
adoptive family.

1
AIR 1967 SC 1761
2
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
15
4) According to the Petitioner, the adopted son can claim through the husband
of the adoptive mother.

“Section 113 states that:

Other conditions for a valid adoption- In every adoption, the following

conditions must be complied with:

(i) if any adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the
adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son's son or son's son's son
(whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of
adoption;

(ii) if the adoption is of a daughter the adoptive father or mother by whom the
adoption is made must not have a Hindu daughter or son's daughter (whether by
legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption;

(iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be adopted is a female, the
adoptive father is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted;

(iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is a male, the
adoptive mother is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted;

(v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons;

(vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by
the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to
transfer the child from the family of its birth or in the case of an
abandoned child or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place
or family where it has been brought up to the family of its adoption.

3
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

16
Provided that the performance of datta homan, shall not be essential to the
validity of an adoption.”

“Section 124: Effect of adoptions- An adopted child shall be deemed to be the

child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from
the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family
of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created
by the adoption in the adoptive family. Provided that-

(a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if
he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth;

(b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall
continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the
ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the
family of his or her birth;

(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in
him or her before the adoption.”

Section 14: Determination of adoptive mother in certain cases-

(1) Where a Hindu who has a wife living adopts a child she shall be deemed to
be the adoptive mother.

(2) Where an adoption has been made with the consent of more than one wife,
the senior most in marriage among them shall be deemed to be the adoptive
mother and the others to be stepmothers.

(3) Where a widower or a bachelor adopts a child, any wife whom he

subsequently marries shall be deemed to be the stepmother of the adopted child.
4
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
17
(4) Where a widow or an unmarried woman adopts a child, any husband
whom she marries subsequently shall be deemed to be the stepfather of the
adopted child.

It is clear that under section 12 and sub-section (vi) of section 11 that the effect
of adoption under the act is that it brings about severances of all ties of the child
given in adoption in the family of his or her birth. The child ceases to have any
ties with the family of his birth.

In the section 11 and 12 adoption made by the widow the adopted child
becomes absorbed in the adoptive family to which the widow belongs. That
means child adopted tied with the relationship of son ship with the deceased
husband of the widow. This principle applied in Arukushi Narayan v. Janabai
Sama Sawat5 by the Bombay High Court stated that result of adoption by either
of spouse is that the adoptive child becomes the child of both the spouses.

5
AIR 1966 Bom. 174
18
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

1) According to the respondent, he contended that the adoption is not valid. He

states that plaintiff no. 2 does not have any right to claim the property and
the house as his father was sole coparcener of the joint family property at the
time of adoption.
2) According to the respondent, he states that Dulichand had executed a will
before his death making a bequest of his house entirely to him. He also
contended that Dulichand had in lifetime surrender the lands to the Jagidar
who made re-settlement of the same with the respondent.
3) Later in the further appeal argued on behalf of the respondent that the
jurisdiction of the civil court was barred by the provisions of the Madhya
Bharat Land Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and
Tenancy Act, 1950.

19
JUDGMENT:

Basing on the facts of the case applying the law in respect of adoption concept
the case was decided. In the lower court it was decided in the favor of plaintiff
no. 2 and granted a decree for the possession with regards to the land and the
house. But when it was appealed by respondent to district court, the decree was
modified and it was decided by considering the execution of a will was valid so
far half of his share in the house was concerned and the respondent was entitled
to the half share of his house in dispute. Again when it was appealed in front
Madhya Pradesh High Court it totally reversed the decree of the lower courts
and held that the plaintiff’s does not entitled to any relief and the suit must be
dismissed. Plaintiff appealed to Supreme Court for proper justice on question of
law.

Supreme Court decided the case on the reasons of:

1. It is conceded case of both the parties that the properties comprised of

agrarian arrive and a house together held by Bhagirath and Dulichand. After
the passing of Bhagirath, Dulichand got to be the sole surviving coparcener
of the joint family. At the time when offended party no. 2 Suresh Chandra
was received the joint family still proceeded to exist and the debated
properties held their character of coparcenary properties.

The Supreme court has cited and has been pointed out in Gowli Buddanna v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore6, that beneath the Hindu system of law
a joint family may comprise of a single male part and widows of perished male
individuals which the property of a joint family did not desist to have a place to

6
AIR 1966 SC 1523
20
a joint family only since the family is spoken to by a single coparcener who has
rights which an supreme proprietor of property may have.

Facts of the case, one Buddappa, his spouse, his two girls and his single child,
Buddanna, were individuals of a Hindu unified family. Buddappa passed on and
after his passing the address emerged whether the wage of the properties held
by Buddanna as the sole surviving coparcener was assessable as
the person salary of Buddanna or as the salary of the Hindu Unified Family.

It was held by this Court that since the property which came into the hands
of Buddanna as the sole surviving coparcener was initially joint family
property, it did not desist to have a place to the joint family
and salary from it was assessable within the hands of Buddanna as wage of
the Hindu Unified Family.

As pointed out by the Legal Committee in Lawyer Common of Ceylon v. A. R.

Arunachalam Chettiar7, it is as it were by analyzing the nature of the rights of
the individuals of the unified family, both those in being and those however to
be born, that it can be decided whether the family property
can legitimately be depicted as 'joint property' of the unified family.
The premise of the choice was that the property which was the joint family
property of the Hindu unified family did not desist to be so since of the
"brief lessening of the coparcenary unit to a single person". The character of the
property, that it was the joint property of a Hindu unified family, remained the
same.

7
1957 A.C. 540
21
By applying the principle to the present case, after the death of Bhagirath the
joint family property continued to retain its character in the hands of Dulichand
as the widow of Bhagirath was still alive and continued to enjoy the right of
maintenance out of the joint family properties.

2. Supreme court held that the High Court view in plaintiff no.2 had become
son of plaintiff no.1 with effect from 1958 and he would not become the
adopted son of Bhagirath in the view of the provisions laid down was flaw.

Supreme Court held that under “Section 5(1) of Act 78 of 1956 it clearly states:

(1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a

Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this
chapter....

The adoption made by the plaintiff no.1 was on March 4, 1958 which is after
the enactment of the respective act. The adoption is valid according to the Act
78 0f 1956.

Validity of adoption is defined under Section 6 deals with the requisites of a

valid adoption and provides:

No adoption shall be valid unless

(i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption.

(ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so;

(iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and

(iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in
this Chapter.”

22
Under Section 8 any female Hindu, who is of sound mind and not a minor is
stated to have capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. The language of
this section shows that all females except a wife have capacity to adopt a son or
a daughter. Thus, an unmarried female or a divorcee or a widow has the legal
capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. Section 11 relates to "other
conditions for a valid adoption".

Clause (vi) of Section 11 which states:

(vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the
parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the
child from the family of its birth to the family of its adoption.

Supreme Court pointed out the Section 12 which enacts:

An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or
mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such
date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to
be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family;
Provided that

(a).........

(b).........

(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in
him or her before the adoption.

5. It is clear on a reading of the main part of Section 12 and Sub-section (vi) of

Section 11 that the effect of adoption under the Act is that it brings about
severance of all ties of the child given in adoption in the family of his or her
birth. The child altogether ceases to have any ties with the family of his birth.
23
These very ties are automatically replaced by those created by the adoption in
the adoptive family.

The scheme of Sections 11 and 12, therefore, is that in the case of adoption by a
widow the adopted child becomes absorbed in the adoptive family to which the
widow belonged. In other words the child adopted is tied with the relationship
of son ship with the deceased husband of the widow. The other collateral
relations, of the husband would be connected with the child through that
deceased husband of the widow.

For instance, the husband's brother would necessarily be the uncle of the
adopted child. The daughter of the adoptive mother (and father) would
necessarily be the sister of the adopted son, and in this way, the adopted
son would become a member of the widow's family, with the ties of
relationship with the deceased husband of the widow as his adoptive father.

Supreme Court is borne out by the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Arukushi Narayan v. Janabai Sama Sawat8. It follows that in the present case
plaintiff no. 2 Suresh Chandra, when he was adopted by Bhagirath's widow,
became the adopted son of both the widow and her deceased husband Bhagirath
and, therefore, became a coparcener with Dulichand in the joint family
properties. After the death of Dulichand, plaintiff no. 2 became the sole
surviving coparcener and was entitled to the possession of all joint family
properties.

Supreme Court later held that the decision made by The Additional District
Judge was, therefore, right in granting a decree in favor of the plaintiff no. 2

8
AIR 1966 Bom 174
24
declaring his title to the agricultural lands in the village Palasia and half share of
the house situated in the village.

Supreme Court did not permissible for the respondent to raise the new question
which was not raised in the lower courts. Supreme Court held that the decree
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh must be set aside and judgment,
decree by the Additional District judge must be restored i.e., right in granting a
decree in favor of the plaintiff no. 2 declaring his title to the agricultural lands in
the village Palasia and half share of the house situated in the village.

25
RESEARCHER’S OPINION:

Firstly, the High Court made an error in passing the decree but later Supreme
Court was right in pointing out the flaw made by the High Court and passed a
judgment and decree stating that the plaintiff no. 2 has a title to the agricultural
lands in the village Palasia and half share of the house situated in the village.
The opinion of researcher regarding the decision made by Supreme Court is
satisfied and deemed to be reasonable in granting the decree.

26