JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.3.1978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in Revision No. 271 (Phool Chand v. Chhaidua) Annexure-1 to the writ petition as also the order dated 25.6.1977 passed in Appeal No. 13 under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Chhaidua v. Phool Chand) by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Allahabad. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition the respondent No. 3 Chhaidua died and has been substituted by his heir and legal representative namely Raghu Raj who also died and has been substituted by his heir namely Kallu. When this writ petition was filed an interim order dated 25.7.1978 had been passed wherein it was provided that the petitioner will not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. 3. Sri Suresh Kumar Srivastava alongwith Sri C.B. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Village Sanwat, Pargana Hathgaon, District Fatehpur was brought under consolidation operations with the issue of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in 1380 Fasli. The respondent No. 3 Chhaidua and Smt. Mithunia widow of Sukhdeo the real brother of Chhaidua were recorded as co-tenants in Khata No. 279 and 280 in the basic year. The case setup is that Smt. Mithunia widow of Sukhdeo having only daughters and no son adopted the petitioner Phool Chand in order to continue the male lineage of her husband Sukhdeo and while adopting him all the religious formalities were performed and an adoption-deed was prepared and registered with the Sub Registrar, Fatehpur on 19.4.1975. 4. Smt. Mithunia the adoptive mother of the petitioner Phool Chand is alleged to have died on 1.6.1975 hence the petitioner Phool Chand filed an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for mutation of his name in the revenue record in place of his deceased adoptive mother Smt. Mithunia. The four daughters of Smt. Mithunia namely Chitani, Chandania, Sonia and Rajji also filed their objections claiming rights by succession from their mother Smt. Mithunia. Another objection is alleged to have been filed by the respondent No. 3 namely Chhaidua claming to be recorded in place of Mithunia on the ground that he is real brother of Mithunia’s deceased husband Sukhdeo. Another objection is alleged to have been filed by the respondent No. 3 namely Chhaidua claming to be recorded in place of Mithunia on the ground that he is real brother of Mithunia’s deceased husband Sukhdeo. The Consolidation Officer decided the said objections and allowed the claim of the petitioner Phool Chand who was the adopted son of Smt. Mithunia but rejected the claim of Chhaidua and the others. The petitioner Phool Chand’s name was directed to be mutated in the revenue records in place of his adoptive mother Smt. Mithunia by the order dated 29.9.1976. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner Chhaidua brother of Sukhdeo feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Fatehpur being Appeal No. 13 which was allowed by the order dated 25.6.1977 who rejected the factum of adoption as well as the registered adoption-deed whereupon the name of Chhaidua was directed to be recorded in the revenue record in place of deceased Mithunia. The petitioner Phool Chand feeling aggrieved filed a Revision No. 271 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.3.1978 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and hence this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that insofar as the four daughters of Smt. Mithunia are concerned they never contested the matter after filing the objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and therefore their objections were rejected and they did not file any appeal there against but admitted the claim of the petitioner Phool Chand by filing affidavit before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner Mithunia widow of Sukhdeo took the petitioner Phool Chand in adoption from the petitioners natural father namely Ram Raj and natural mother namely Pachunia and physical giving and taking of the petitioner was done in front of relations and other persons on 14.4.1975 whereafter the adoption-deed was registered on 19.4.1975. 8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the natural father of the petitioner namely Ram Raj and the natural mother of the petitioner namely Pachunia affixed their thumb impression on the adoption-deed at the time of its execution and also at the time of its registration before the Sub-Registrar. 8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the natural father of the petitioner namely Ram Raj and the natural mother of the petitioner namely Pachunia affixed their thumb impression on the adoption-deed at the time of its execution and also at the time of its registration before the Sub-Registrar. He states that Shyam Lal and Nanbudda were the marginal witnesses of the adoption-deed and they also affixed their thumb impression on the adoption-deed as well as in the register at the office of Sub- Registrar, Fatehpur. Learned counsel states that the adoption-deed was proved by the oral statement of the marginal witnesses Shyam Lal as also by the oral statement of Ramraj who was natural father of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that Smt. Mithunia also affixed her thumb impression on the adoption-deed in presence of the natural parents of the petitioner and two marginal witnesses and also in the presence of Sub-Registrar and also put her thumb impression on the register in the office of Sub-Registrar. 9. According to learned counsel for the petitioner one Jagdeo was produced as witness who clearly stated that the petitioner Phool Chand is adopted son of Mithunia and is in possession of the land in dispute through his guardian and natural father Ram Raj. According to him the parties live in the same village where the land is situated. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer Consolidation have accepted the date of death of Smt. Mithunia as 1.6.1975 but such date was not accepted by respondent No. 3 Chhaidua brother of Sukhdeo. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the original registered adoption-deed produced by him to state that Nanbudda the marginal witness did not affix his signature but has affixed his thumb impression and therefore the findings contrary given thereto by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Joint Director of Consolidation are ex-facie erroneous and illegal. He states that it is an incorrect perusal of the adoption-deed which has led both the authorities to record incorrect conclusions. He has submitted that the Courts below have committed an illegality when they have held that Nanbudda one of the marginal witness was not produced hence the adoption-deed is not fully proved. He states that it is an incorrect perusal of the adoption-deed which has led both the authorities to record incorrect conclusions. He has submitted that the Courts below have committed an illegality when they have held that Nanbudda one of the marginal witness was not produced hence the adoption-deed is not fully proved. According to him when Ram Raj the natural father of the petitioner and one marginal witness Shyam Lal were produced as witness and they proved the adoption-deed then it cannot be held that by non production of the second marginal witness Nanbudda the adoption-deed had not been proved. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act 1956 to submit that whenever a document is registered under any law and is produced before the Court and it is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption it shall be presumed that adoption has been made in compliance of the provisions of the Act. He states that such presumption under Section 16 is rebuttable and therefore the person rebutting it has to disprove the adoption-deed and it is not required for the person taking and the person giving to prove the document. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the adoption-deed was duly proved by the natural father of the petitioner who is the person giving the child in adoption and also by the marginal witness Shyam Lal then the presumption under Section 16 of the Act regarding the genuinity of the registered adoption-deed is there which was even otherwise proved by the witness. He states that the respondent No. 3 Chiddua could not by any evidence disprove the document of adoption and therefore the conclusion arrived at by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the contrary is perverse and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has been in possession of the chak carved out at the stage of Consolidation Officer and is paying the land revenue as well as irrigation charges. 13. On the other hand a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 Chiddua by his parokar and not by him. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has been in possession of the chak carved out at the stage of Consolidation Officer and is paying the land revenue as well as irrigation charges. 13. On the other hand a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 Chiddua by his parokar and not by him. Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that adoption of the petitioner never took place and there was no evidence available on record to prove that Smt. Mithunia had taken the petitioner in adoption or that the petitioners natural father Ram Raj had given the petitioner in adoption. He alleges violation of Section 11 of the Act. He states that the petitioner is son of daughter of Smt. Mithunia hence in law he could not be adopted by his grand-mother (Nani). His case is that the adoption-deed was executed by an impostor and not by Smt. Mithunia since she had died prior to 14.4.1975. According to learned counsel for respondent No. 3 after the death of Mithunia her husband’s real brother Chiddua was the preferential heir as compared to a married daughter’s son. He states that execution of the adoption-deed and the thumb impression thereupon have not been proved and the statement of the witness was not reliable. According to him possession of the land has been taken by the respondent No. 3 after the order dated 23.6.1977 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and after the death of respondent No. 3 his heirs are in possession of the land in dispute. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nanha and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and others, 1975 AWC 270, to state that when there is a finding recorded by a Court on fact which is based on no evidence and it has ignored a vital plea based on material evidence which has affected the result then it has to be held that failure of justice has occurred. 15. 15. He has placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Durga Prasad v. Subedar Singh and another, AIR 1978 All 472 and submits that when execution of an adoption-deed has been proved by producing one attesting witness then the party is not required to doubly prove the adoption-deed by producing the other attesting witness. 16. He has cited the decision in the case of Aklesh Chandra Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, 1979 ACJ 9 and states that when a registered adoption-deed is produced the presumption under Section 16 of the Act will apply and it is for the party who challenges the adoption-deed to bear the burden and disprove it. 17. While referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Ramji v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1981 AWC 204, he has submitted that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act is where a document is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption. He states that in the present case Smt. Mithunia was the person taking the petitioner in adoption and the natural father Ram Raj was the person giving the child in adoption and both of them have affixed their thumb impression on the adoption-deed hence the presumption under Section 16 was in favour of the petitioner and it was not successfully disproved by the respondent No. 3 who did not led any evidence whatsoever. 18. He has cited the decision in the case of Baru and others v. Tej Pal and others, 1998 (32) ALR 389 and states that when execution and registration of the adoption-deed have been duly proved the presumption under Section 16 is available and then the adoption-deed cannot be challenged on the ground of absence of requisite ceremonies. 19. While relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Smt. Vidya and others, 2007(2) ADJ 462 , he has submitted that when presumption under Section 16 is drawn then the Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the illegality and validity of the adoption-deed which was duly executed and registered. 20. 19. While relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Smt. Vidya and others, 2007(2) ADJ 462 , he has submitted that when presumption under Section 16 is drawn then the Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the illegality and validity of the adoption-deed which was duly executed and registered. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has lastly placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court for the same purpose in the case of Ram Kumar Gupta v. Board of Revenue and others, decided on 23.8.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2524 of 1997. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has not cited any decision to support his submissions. 22. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in order to adjudge the correctness of the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Smt. Mithunia had never signed the adoption-deed a perusal of the deed itself would be necessary. 23. The registered adoption-deed has been produced in original by learned counsel for the petitioners which upon perusal shows that it bears the thumb impression alleged to be of Smt. Mithunia on the first page and on the reverse of the first page where registration has been done and also on the second page. 24. It contains the alleged signature of Ram Raj on the first page and also the alleged thumb impression of Ram Raj on the reverse of the first page where registration has been done. 25. The adoption-deed also contains the alleged thumb impression of Smt. Pachunia the natural mother of the petitioner on the first page as also on the reverse of the first page where registration has been done and also on the second page. 26. The alleged thumb impression of Nanbudda the attesting witness is available on the first page as also on the reverse of the first page where registration has been done. 27. The alleged signature of Shyam Lal the other attesting witness is available on the first page and his alleged thumb impression is available on the reverse of the first page where registration has been done. 28. In these proceedings the respondent No. 3 while disputing the execution of the adoption-deed has not got the signatures or thumb impressions examined by any expert. 28. In these proceedings the respondent No. 3 while disputing the execution of the adoption-deed has not got the signatures or thumb impressions examined by any expert. 29. Therefore the thumb impressions on the deed of adoption have not been disproved. In other words if any signature or thumb impression is disputed then evidence has to be led to disprove it. One of the methods in law is to get them examined by an expert. The expert report can be an evidence before the Court to enable the Court to give a finding on the dispute. But if the disputed signatures or the thumb impression are not examined by an expert and no report of an expert is available to the Court then the Court has to examine the pleadings of the parties to determine whether the signature or thumb impression are genuine. In such circumstances the Court is not equipped with an expert opinion and it is only the other evidence available before it that has to be taken into account to record a finding of fact. 30. When a signature or a thumb impression on a document is disputed and none of the parties adduce any evidence of an expert then the Courts are to decide the issue on a bare perusal of the signature or thumb impression. If it is a signature which has to be compared with an admitted signature then the Courts can give a finding based on a bare perusal by the eyes. But where a thumb impression is disputed and no expert opinion is available before the Court then a bare perusal by the naked eye cannot be a method for the Court to record any finding as to whether the disputed thumb impression is the same or not with the admitted thumb impression. Where a thumb impression is involved it has to be either proved or disproved by an expert opinion otherwise there is no way that it can be proved or disproved by examination with the naked eye. Under such circumstances the other evidence led by the parties would be relevant to record a finding whether the thumb impression was affixed by the genuine person whose thumb impression is alleged to be on a document. 31. In the present case one party states that Mithunia died on 1.6.1975 and had executed the adoption-deed on 14.4.1975 and registered it on 19.4.1975. 31. In the present case one party states that Mithunia died on 1.6.1975 and had executed the adoption-deed on 14.4.1975 and registered it on 19.4.1975. The other party states that Mithunia died earlier hence she was not alive on 14.4.1975 or on 19.4.1975 to execute or register the adoption-deed. Therefore if it be held that she died prior to the date of alleged execution and registration of the adoption-deed then it can safely be held that the deed did not contain the genuine thumb impression. But if it be held that she died on 1.6.1975 then it has to be presumed that she executed the deed by putting her thumb impression on 14.4.1975 and got it registered on 19.4.1975. Therefore when there is no expert evidence on record regarding the thumb impression available on the deed then it has to be found out whether Mithunia was alive on 14.4.1975 or 19.4.1975. If she was alive then the presumption under Section 16 of the Act has to be drawn. 32. The Consolidation Officer considered this dispute and has recorded that the petitioner produced the copy of the Birth and Death Register and the Family Register where the date of death of Mithunia is recorded as 1.6.1975. The Respondent No. 3 Chiddua did not produce any evidence to show that Mithunia died prior to 1.6.1975. He also did not depose nor gave any oral statement. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also perused the documentary evidence and confirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer and held the date of death of Muthinia to be 1.6.1975. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not go into this issue nor he has set aside the finding regarding the date of death of Mithunia. Therefore the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation is that Mithunia died on 1.6.1975. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to prove otherwise. Hence the date of death of Mithunia has to be accepted as 1.6.1975. The finding of the Courts below do not suffer from any error on this issue and therefore the plea taken by Respondent No. 3 Chiddua that an impostor has signed the adoption-deed after the death of Mithunia is baseless. No evidence was led by him on this plea also. 33. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has disbelieved the adoption-deed for the reason that it was not successfully proved. No evidence was led by him on this plea also. 33. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has disbelieved the adoption-deed for the reason that it was not successfully proved. He reasoned that only one Marginal witness Shyam Lal was produced. According to him when the second marginal witness Nanbudda and the scribe Hari Bhajan Lal were not produced the deed was not proved. He also recorded that the village priest, the barber and other village people who must have been present at the time of adoption were not produced hence the deed was not above suspicion. He has considered the circumstance that the daughters of Mithunia had claimed succession and although they withdrew their claim at the Stage of appeal but it was an indication that no adoption had taken place. 34. The above view of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 is reproduced hereunder : Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption-”Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any Court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.” 35. The presumption under the Section is that if the deed is signed by the person giving and the person taking in adoption the provision has been complied with. It is the person challenging the factum of adoption who has to disprove the adoption. In the present case the Respondent No. 3 Chidua has led no evidence whatsoever to disprove the deed. He has not even appeared to give any oral statement. Therefore there is no evidence on record to challenge the deed and it has not been disproved. A mere plea that the deed is not genuine is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 16 of the Act. Under such circumstance the plea that the requirements of Section 11 of the Act had not been satisfied are not made out hence loose all significance with the registration of the deed of adoption. 36. A mere plea that the deed is not genuine is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 16 of the Act. Under such circumstance the plea that the requirements of Section 11 of the Act had not been satisfied are not made out hence loose all significance with the registration of the deed of adoption. 36. The reason being that under Section 11 of the Act the conditions for a valid adoption are fully satisfied in the present case. The petitioner is a male and was aged about five years when he was adopted. The person who has adopted him is a female and was more than 21 years older than the person adopted. It was the statement of the witnesses who deposed that when Mithunia died on 1.6.1975 she was 60-70 years of age. Therefore even if she was 60 years of age on 1.6.1975 then on the date of adoption i.e. 14.4.1975 she was 60 years old and the adopted child was five years old. Clearly the age difference between them was of approximately 55 years. The evidence in this case shows that the child was actually given and taken on 14.4.1975 by the natural parents to Mithunia in the presence of witnesses. 37. When the deed was fully proved for its execution and registration and there was no evidence whatsoever to disprove it then the Settlement Officer Consolidation could not have concluded that it is not above suspicion only for the reason that the second marginal witness was not produced. The view of the Settlement Officer Consolidation that the priest, barber and other villagers had not been produced is a view running contrary to the statutory provision of Section 16 of the Act. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has on the basis of conjectures held that Mithunia’s daughter Pachunia and her husband Ram Raj the natural parents of the petitioner Phool Chand had got the adoption-deed executed so that the entire properties may be inherited by their natural son Phool Chand to the exclusion of other daughters. There is no basis for this conjecture on the record of this Case nor the other daugthers of Mithinia have pursued the matter but have admitted the adoption at the appellate stage. 38. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation for the same grounds. There is no basis for this conjecture on the record of this Case nor the other daugthers of Mithinia have pursued the matter but have admitted the adoption at the appellate stage. 38. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation for the same grounds. He has not dealt with the issue of the date of death of Mithunia. Therefore, the date of death of Mithunia as recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation has to be taken as 1.6.1975 which is a date after the adoption was done on 14.4.1975 and its registration on 19.4.1975. He has also held that the deed was not proved to the hilt. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has lost sight of the fact that in law there is a presumption and the person challenging the adoption-deed has to bear the burden to disprove it. When there was no evidence whatsoever to disprove the execution and registration of the adoption-deed and there was no evidence that it was executed by an impostor then the deed was not disproved. The parties challenging the deed did not even get the thumb impression of the witness or the executants who were still alive examined by an expert. Therefore this was a case of challenge to the adoption-deed but with no evidence to back the challenge. 39. For the above reasons the impugned orders cannot be upheld. They require to be set aside. The order dated 25.6.1977 passed in Appeal No. 13 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Allahabad and the order dated 29.3.1978 passed in Revision No. 271 (Phool Chand v. Chhaidua) by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad are set aside. 40. The writ petition is allowed. 41. The original registered adoption-deed has been returned to Sri Suresh Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner today. No order is passed as to costs. ——————