Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1691 (PAT)

Niranjan Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2008-11-27

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN

body2008
JUDGEMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD and RAVI RANJAN JJ. 1. Wht petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 304 of 2002 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Writ petitioner-appellant, hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner, aggrieved by the order rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, preferred the writ application, inter alia, contending that he was adopted by Daman Paswan, who was a choukidar within Naubatpur Police Station in the district of Patna. According to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid adoption took place when he was two and half years old in presence of his natural parents and adopting parents. His further assertion is that he was admitted in the school on 6.8.1987 and the School Leaving Certificate shows him to be the son of Damari Paswan. In the writ application, it was further pleaded that a deed of adoption was executed and was registered on 3rd of November, 1999. Accordingly, the plea of the writ petitioner that as he is the adopted son of Damari Paswan, who died-in-harness, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground and that the Compassionate Committee wrongly rejected his claim. In support of the submission, reliance was placed before the learned Single Judge to a bench decisions of this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan V/s. State of Bihar and Others, 1994 (2) PLJR 536 and in the case of Madhusudan Mishra V/s. State of Bihar and Others, 1996 (1) PLJR 482 . 3. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the facts, came to the conclusion that the very claim of the writ petitioner of adoption is not fit to be accepted. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge had observed that according to the writ petitioner himself, the adoption took place in the year 1984 but the deed of adoption was executed on 3.11.1999 and the alleged adopting father, namely, Damari Paswan died only 15 days thereafter on 16.11.1999. The learned Single Judge also did not place reliance on the solitary piece of evidence, that is, School Leaving Certificate to accept the plea of the writ petitioner. 4. Mr. The learned Single Judge also did not place reliance on the solitary piece of evidence, that is, School Leaving Certificate to accept the plea of the writ petitioner. 4. Mr. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the deed of adoption being registered, there is presumption of adoption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the writ petitioner was not adopted. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to paragraph 8 of the writ petition. It reads as follows:- "That after the death of petitioners mother, his fathers health started detoriating and as such in order to avoid any future problem a deed of memorandum of adoption was executed between a party which was registered on 3.11.1999 before Sub-Registrar. Bikram Registry Office, District Patna. For ready reference the petitioner is enclosing herewith the contents of the aforesaid deed and is ready to produce the certified copy of the aforesaid registered deed before this Hon ble Court as and when required at the time of hearing of this application." (underlining ours) 5. Further, our attention has been drawn to ground no. 1 of the memo of appeal, it reads as follows:- "For that the Hon ble Single Judge of Patna High Court made out a third case to reject the writ petition in that the State of Bihar did not doubt the correctness or validity of the registered deed of adoption being Annexure-2 to the writ petition." 6. In fact, in order to drive home his point, he has produced before us the deed of adoption which according to him is registered. 7. We have seen the said document and from its perusal, it is evident that it is not a registered document. Not only this document sought to be relied on is patently fabricated. In the last page of the said deed, it has been stated that "in witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set and subscribed their respective hands and seals on 1st day of November, 1999". The document produced shows the date 28.10.1999. Further in the said page, excepting the signature of the witness Baldeo Paswan and allegedly the thumb impression of the natural father the signature or thumb impressions of the adoptive father and mother or for that matter the natural mother do not exist. The document produced shows the date 28.10.1999. Further in the said page, excepting the signature of the witness Baldeo Paswan and allegedly the thumb impression of the natural father the signature or thumb impressions of the adoptive father and mother or for that matter the natural mother do not exist. Not only this, in the first page of the document, the date on which the deed of adoption was made, has not been stated. In the writ application, the plea of the writ petitioner is that the document was registered on 3.11.1999. However, the document produced is not registered and it was prepared on 28th of October, 1999. In view of the fact that the document is not registered, no presumption of adoption arises. Otherwise also the claim of the adoption on the basis of the document having apparent infirmities referred to above cannot be accepted. 8. We are totally in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the claim of the writ petitioner of adoption is absolutely illegal and unfounded and he is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground. 9. We have heard the Counsel on the question of appellants prosecution. Excepting apology no explanation is offered. Accepting apology without valid reason would deflect and pollute stream of justice. It is not one of those cases where some wrong statement is made innocently. In the writ application, writ petitioner had pleaded that it is a registered document and not only this while assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in the memo of appeal he has specifically stated that deed of adoption is a registered document. As the writ petitioner has tried to obtain favourable order from the Court by making false statement claiming that the deed of adoption is registered, we are of the opinion that he deserves to be prosecuted for making such a false statement and producing forged and fabricated document. 10. The Registrar General shall file complaint before the appropriate court for prosecution of the writ petitioner-appellant. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondents. 12. Let the deed of adoption be kept in sealed cover.