Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2543 (ALL)

Raghuraj Singh v. State Of U. P.

2024-12-17

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for contesting respondent. 2. In the present case, contesting respondents have filed a Suit No.42/2007 under Section 229 -B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act, 1950 against the petitioner and claimed co-tenure to the extent of half shares. 3. In the said suit following 13 issues were framed. 4. So far as present controversy is concerned, issue nos.8 and 13 are relevant. 5. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 6.4.2011 decreed the suit. So far as finding in regard to issue nos.8 and 13 are concerned, relevant findings thereof are reproduced hereinafter: 6. Petitioner being aggrieved by the above order, filed an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 11.8.2011 and the suit was dismissed. Relevant finding returned by the First Appellate Court so far as adoption is concerned is reproduced hereinafter: 7. The plaintiff/contesting respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.2007 and the relevant finding returned in regard to adoption deed is as follows: 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the issue in regard to adoption was rightly considered by the First Appellate Court which does not require any interference by the Second Appellate Court. 9. Learned Senior Counsel referred some documents annexed along with this writ petition that plaintiff/contesting respondents has admitted existence of adoption deed. 10. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on the basis of adoption, sale deeds were executed which were not challenged. Contesting respondents have never made any attempt to challenge the adoption deed by way of filing separate proceedings and therefore, in aforesaid, principle of Estopple will also act against the respondents. 11. Learned Senior Counsel has referred judgments passed by Supreme Court in Mst. Deu v. Laxmi Narayan , (1998) 8 SCC 701 , that in view of Section 16 of the Act of 1956, whenever any document registered under law is produced before the Court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the persons mentioned therein, the Court should presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the said statute, unless and until it is disproved. It was further held that in view of Section 16 of the Act of 1956, it is open to the persons who challenge the registered deed of adoption to disprove the same by taking independent proceedings. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents/plaintiff submitted that issue of adoption has to be proved in terms of relevant provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) which provides that adoption be carried out in accordance with law with the consent of both the parties including their respective wife. The adoption deed was not proved in accordance with the said provisions and substantial questions of law framed by the Board of Revenue were rightly answered. 13. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 14. The Board of Revenue has framed substantial questions of law as to whether Hukum Pal Singh was adopted by Mukhram Singh on 12.2.1962 and the same was proved on basis of evidence or not. 15. Board of Revenue has taken note of following factors to return a finding that adoption was not proved: (a) No original, certified or photo copy of adoption deed dated12.2.1962 is on record. (b) Record Keeper of the Central Registrar was examined and on the basis of records available, only proves that an adoption deed was registered on 12.2.1962. (c) A registered adoption deed is presumed a valid document till it is rebutted and Board of Revenue has held that from the statement of Anees Ahmad, an employee of Registrar’s office age of Hukum Pal Singh was not clear as well as it was also not clear as to whether it was signed by natural father and mother of Hukum Pal Singh or not, as well as details of witnesses were also not on record and held that adoption deed was not proved in accordance with law. 16. At this stage Court takes note of a judgments passed by Supreme Court in M. Vanaja Vs M. Sarla Devi (Dead), (2020) 5 SCC 307 and Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead, Through LRs.), (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1488, that compliance of the conditions in Chapter I of the Act of 1956 is mandatory for an adoption to be treated as valid. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead, Through LRs.), (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1488, that compliance of the conditions in Chapter I of the Act of 1956 is mandatory for an adoption to be treated as valid. The two important conditions as mentioned in Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956 are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption. Similarly, the consent of natural father and mother is also necessary. 17. Aforesaid finding returned by the Second Appellate Court are based on materials available, therefore, the adoption deed cannot be considered to be proved in terms of above referred two conditions which are absolutely missing in the present case. The adoption deed was not signed by natural father and mother as well adopted father and mother as well as adoption deed was not proved by evidence of attesting witnesses. 18. Court takes note that there are some documents wherein the plaintiff has referred about adoption deed, but it would not be sufficient to consider it to be an admission, as well as it appears that said documents were not placed before the Revenue Courts. 19. Learned Trial Court has considered the above referred issues and returned a finding that the document dated 12.2.1962 was a void document, since neither it discloses the date of adoption nor signed by their natural father and mother. 20. Interference caused by the First Appellate Court in the said finding on a ground that if the signatures of natural mother and father on the adoption deed are present even as a witness, it would be sufficient to prove the adoption deed was wrong. As referred above, aforesaid finding is absolutely in teeth of judgment passed in M. Vanaja and Moturu Nalini Kanth (supra) that in the absence of signatures of adopted father and mother as well as of natural father and mother, if alive then adoption deed will not be considered to be legal, since it would be contrary to the provisions of Act, of 1956. 21. Accordingly, findings returned by First Appellate Court are perverse and contrary to law, therefore, Court is of considered opinion that adoption deed was not proved in accordance with law. 22. 21. Accordingly, findings returned by First Appellate Court are perverse and contrary to law, therefore, Court is of considered opinion that adoption deed was not proved in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, substantial questions of law as framed by the Board of Revenue was rightly answered and it does not require any interference by this Court. 23. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.