Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.— 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Jota Devi (since deceased) and now represented by her legal heirs against judgments and order dated 7.5.1983 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision No. 1667/1762 and has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 7.5.1983. 3. As per the factual matrix Late Sri Shambhu Sharan Singh was admittedly owner of Khata No. 8, 12, 73, 87, 272, 273 of Village Bela, Pashchim and khata No. 44 of Village Pure Uday Ram. Shambhu Sharan Singh died in the year 1972. Two objections were filed, one by Smt. Jota Devi being his widow and other by Sri Ramesh Singh claiming himself to be adopted son of Shambhu Sharan Singh. The Consolidation Officer decided both the objections and declared Smt. Jota Devi to be the heir of Shambhu Sharan Singh and directed that her name be recorded in the revenue records. Objection of Ramesh Singh was ultimately rejected. Against this order dated 31.5.1974 Ramesh Singh filed two appeals, Appeal No. 1535 and Appeal No. 1497 under Section 11(1) of Holdings Act. These appeals were also decided in favour of Smt. Jota Devi and against Ramesh Singh and both the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 25.10.1978. Feeling aggrieved, a revision was filed by Ramesh Singh. This revision was allowed by the then DDC vide order dated 10.5.1983 and orders passed by A.C.O and A.S.O.C were quashed and Ramesh Singh was held to be the heir of Shambhu Sharan Singh on account of the adoption. Feeling aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. 4. It was argued from the side of the writ petitioner that the allegedly adoption took place on 17.5.1970. Its recital was written on 18.8.1972 and deed was registered on 11.10.1972 after the death of Shambhu Sharan Singh who died on 8.9.1972. This clearly goes to show that there is something wrong and it has not been explained as to why this adoption deed was not presented for registration in the life time of Shambhu Sharan Singh. It was also argued that Shambhu Sharan Singh had a widow and four daughters who all are married. The daughters were also having their sons. This clearly goes to show that there is something wrong and it has not been explained as to why this adoption deed was not presented for registration in the life time of Shambhu Sharan Singh. It was also argued that Shambhu Sharan Singh had a widow and four daughters who all are married. The daughters were also having their sons. So it was very natural that Shambhu Sharan Singh if had any intention to adopt then he would have adopted one of the sons of his daughters, not Ramesh Singh who was a distant relative. 5. Per Contra it was argued from the side of Opposite Party No.3 that the writ is not maintainable as parties can get their grievance decided in a proceeding under Section 229(b) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It was also argued that since the document was registered hence, its authenticity was proved and DDC has on finding the document registered relied upon in it and passed orders accordingly. 6. I have gone through the respective submissions of the parties. No doubt, the remedy to get the rights declared under Section 229(b) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is available to the parties but the matter is of consolidation proceeding and U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not come into play while deciding the right and title of this proceeding. By filing objection under Section 9, the title is also to be decided. Hence this writ is maintainable. 7. In the case of Lipton India Ltd. Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2009 (27) LCD 161. A Division Bench of this Court has held that if the order passed by the authorities is arbitrary by abusing the power or any violation of principles of natural justice, it may always be subjected to judicial review. 8. In light of this it has to be examined as to what reasons DDC has given while reversing concurrent finding of A.C.O and A.S.O.C. It is to be noted that A.C.O and A.S.O.C both have found that will has not been proved and in suspicion. 9. DDC has without deciding and refuting the reasonings given by both the lower courts, has simply held that since the prescribed authority in a ceiling matter has held that Ramesh Singh is adopted son of Shambhu Sharan Singh and appeal filed by Smt. Jota Devi was rejected, hence, this decision is binding. 9. DDC has without deciding and refuting the reasonings given by both the lower courts, has simply held that since the prescribed authority in a ceiling matter has held that Ramesh Singh is adopted son of Shambhu Sharan Singh and appeal filed by Smt. Jota Devi was rejected, hence, this decision is binding. DDC has relied upon the decision in a matter of ceiling proceeding and has held that since the civil court has not found Mst. Jota to be the legal heir of Shambhu Sharan Singh, it is a solid ground to treat Ramesh Singh as adopted son of Shambhu Sharan Singh. He has further mentioned that since the adoption deed is registered and there is a presumption of its validity then unless and until it is proved to be not valid the registered deed will prevail. 10. Registration of a document has nothing to do with the legality of the transaction. In the case of Sushila Saxena V. Sub-Registrar Shahjahanpur (1997) JCLR-1-438, a Division Bench of this Court has held that: "It has to be borne in mind that the registration is merely a notification of the factum of execution of a document evidencing the even of transaction affecting the title qua in person or property, nothing to do with the legality of the transaction covered by the document which may be open to challenge by the affected person in appropriate proceeding at proper forum." 11. It has to be noted that it has not been denied any where that Mst. Jota was legal weded wife of the deceased Shambhu Sharan Singh and he had four daughters, and one or two of the daughters had male issues. Thus it does not show that Shambhu Sharan Singh has no close heirs to adopts. 12. In this writ petition it has to be seen as to whether adoption deed is above board and there are no suspicious circumstances attached with it. 13. As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations. It is necessary that the evidence to support, it should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth (Kishori Lal Vs. M/s.Chalti Bai AIR (1959) SC. 504). 14. It is necessary that the evidence to support, it should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth (Kishori Lal Vs. M/s.Chalti Bai AIR (1959) SC. 504). 14. In the instant case, the adoption is alleged to have taken place on 17.5.1970 and a recital was incorporated on 28.8.1972 and it was registered on 11.10.1972 after the death of Shambhu Sharan Singh. Why it was not produced for registration in the life time of Shambhu Sharan Singh is an unanswered question. The priest who solemnized the rituals of adoption was not examined. The other witnesses who have been examined before the A.C.O are one way and other related with Jaibaksh Singh, the natural father of Ramesh Singh. 15. Section 7 of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act 1956 sets out the condition regarding capacity of male Hindu to take any adoption. In first proviso, it has been mentioned that if the male Hindu has a wife living, he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife, unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has seized to be a Hindu. Section 9 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act sets out the condition for persons capable of giving any adoption. Sub-Section 2 of Section 9 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act mentions that the father if alive shall not alone have the right to give any adoption, but such right shall not be exercised save with the consent of the mother unless the mother has completely and finally renounced world or has seized to be a Hindu. 16. No doubt under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act there is a presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption but that presumption is rebutable. 17. There is nothing on record to show that either Smt. Jota Devi has consented for adoption and also mother of Ramesh Singh has consented for giving her son into adoption. In the case of Madhusudan Vs. Narayani Bai AIR (1985) SC. 114, it has been held that it is also true that the evidence in proof of the adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable so as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. In the case of Madhusudan Vs. Narayani Bai AIR (1985) SC. 114, it has been held that it is also true that the evidence in proof of the adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable so as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. Nonetheless the fact of adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact. 18. As it has been discussed above that the priest who performed the rituals of adoption has not been examined. It has also been discussed that there is no evidence on record to show that Smt. Jota Devi has given consent for adoption. It has also been mentioned above that there is no provisions on record to show that the mother of Ramesh Singh had also consented to give her son and any adoption. 19. The A.S.O.C has very clearly given a finding that at the time of adoption Tej Bahadur, Kaushal, Siv Charan, Hari Narayan and may other persons were present but none of the persons have been examined by Ramesh Singh to prove the factum of adoption. The witnesses who have been examined from the side of Ramesh Singh are (i) Jai Bux Singh(natural father of Ramesh Singh) (ii) Ram Raj Tripathi (iii) Radha Krishna (iv) Manmohan Singh and (v) Brijpal Singh. 20. Ram Raj Singh had admitted that his nephews Ganga Dutt and Prem Dutt are teachers in Bela Paschim School and Jagatpal is manager of that school. Jagat Pal Singh is real uncle of Jai Bux Singh. Radha Krishna had also admitted that his brother Ram Sanehi is a teacher in Bela Paschim School and Jai Bux Singh is also a teacher in that school. He has further admitted that he himself was a teacher for some days in Bela Paschim School. Manmohan Singh has also admitted that he and father of Jai Bux Singh are close relatives. This clearly goes to show that all the witnesses produced by Ramesh Singh to prove the factum of adoption are highly interested and cannot be said to be independent witnesses. The independent and important witnesses have not been produced. 21. It is also worthy to mention that Ram Ratan has admitted that 17.5.1970 and 20.8.1972 was Sunday and on 17.5.1970 Jaipal Singh's son was to be married and his marriage procession had gone to the bride's house. 22. The independent and important witnesses have not been produced. 21. It is also worthy to mention that Ram Ratan has admitted that 17.5.1970 and 20.8.1972 was Sunday and on 17.5.1970 Jaipal Singh's son was to be married and his marriage procession had gone to the bride's house. 22. It is very strange that on such busy day adoption ceremony was performed. It is also strange that while registering the adoption deed, none of the heirs even wife of Shambhu Sharan Singh was not given a notice. The Court has to be extremely alert and vigilant to guard against being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practice out of lust of the property. If there are any suspicious circumstances the burden is on one who claims to have been adopted, to dispel the cloud of suspicion and to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the position as an adoption would divert the normal and natural course of succession. Experience of life shows that as there have been spurious claims about execution of a will, there have been spurious claims about adoption also. The Court has, therefore, to be aware of the risk involved in upholding the claim of adoption. If there are circumstances which arouse suspicion in the mind of the Court and the conscience of the Court is not satisfied that the evidence preferred to such an adoption is beyond reproach, then the claim of adoption has to be rejected. 23. In this case the most suspicious circumstances that the adoption deed was presented for registration after the death of Shambhu Sharan Singh and there is no plausible explanation for that. As discussed above, there are legal drawbacks in this adoption as have been pointed out earlier in the body of judgment. Those legal drawbacks and special circumstances discussed above, which were rightly pointed out by A.S.O.C concerned clearly show that the adoption has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. 24. DDC concerned has not answered any question posed by the A.S.O.C. Concerned while relying heavily on the order of Ceiling Court, DDC lost sight of the fact tht these proceedings are of summary nature. 25. In view of the above, the judgment passed by DDC concerned dated 7.5.1983 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 26. The writ petition is thus liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. 25. In view of the above, the judgment passed by DDC concerned dated 7.5.1983 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 26. The writ petition is thus liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Order dated 7.5.1983 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision No. 1667/1762 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act related to Village Bela, Paschim, Post Office Bela Paschim, Pargana Miranpur, Tehsil and District Sultanpur, Ramesh Singh Vs. Smt. Jota Devi is hereby quashed and the orders passed by A.S.O.C dated 25.10.1978 and A.C.O. Sultanpur dated 31.5.1974 are upheld . 27. However, this will not preclude the aggrieved person to get a remedy if so advised, before a competent forum and if the aggrieved person moves such application, that forum will not give too much emphasis of the limitation. _____________