# Ashok Kumar v. D.D.C

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 260
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-11
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 10320 of 1983
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-v-d-d-c-51204
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Act, 1956 - Sections 7 & 11 - Section 7 -
Capacity of a male Hindu to take in
adoption - Any male Hindu who has a wife
living shall not adopt except with the
consent of his wife - S. 11, Conditions for
a valid adoption - In every adoption, the
child to be adopted must be actually given
and taken in adoption by the parents with
intent to transfer the child from the family
of its birth to the family of its adoption. It
is mandatory for an adoption to be treated
as valid that two important conditions
mentioned in Section 11 of the Act of 1956
are present, i.e., the consent of wife
before a male Hindu adopts a child, and
proof of a ceremony of giving and taking
adoption. (Para 12)

B. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2) -
Adoption - Objections filed u/s 9-A(2)
by the petitioner on basis of a
registered
adoption
deed,
whereas
other two objections were filed on
basis of an unregistered will and on
basis
of
inheritance.
Consolidation
Officer rejected objections filed by the
petitioner
and
held
that
adoption
proceedings were not legal and were
not in accordance with law, as the
adoption deed was not signed by the
adopted mother. C.O. returned finding
that the wife of Bhuneshwar Singh
(adopted father) was not visible in
photographs.
Wife
of
Bhuneshwar
(adopted father) had not put her
signature or thumb impression on the
adoption
deed.
Even
the
wife
of
Subedar Singh (natural father) was
also absent, and as such, the said
document was not sufficient to prove
adoption.
Objection
on
basis
of
inheritance was only accepted. Appeal
of petitioner was allowed and held that
registered adoption deed was a valid
document and adoption was carried
out
by
a
due
legal
process.
A
registered
document
carries
presumption
unless
rebutted.
Settlement Officer Consolidation did
not refer to the presence of wife of the
adopted father and did not set aside
the
findings
returned
by
the
Consolidation
Officer.
Board
of
Revenue held that since the wife of
Bhuneshwar (adopted father) had not
signed
the
adoption
deed,
which
indicates that she had not given her
consent for adoption, which was a
mandatory
requirement.
Held
-
Adopted
father
and
mother
of
petitioner died prior to proceedings.
Wife of adopted father had not signed
the
adoption
deed,
and
the
photographs also indicate that she had
not participated in the ceremony. One
witness had not even identified her in
photographs, therefore, the Court was
of
the
opinion
that
mandatory
requirement that person who adopts a
child must have consent of his wife
was absent. Adoption was not legally
valid. (Para 18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 12 ILRA 260
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ B No. 10320 of 1983

Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajeshwar Tiwari, Dipendra Kumar, Faujdar
Rai, O.P. Mishra, Pradeep Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.N. Singh, R.N. Singh, Rahul Sahai, SC

A. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 - Sections 7 & 11 - Section 7 -
Capacity of a male Hindu to take in
adoption - Any male Hindu who has a wife
living shall not adopt except with the
consent of his wife - S. 11, Conditions for
a valid adoption - In every adoption, the
child to be adopted must be actually given
and taken in adoption by the parents with
intent to transfer the child from the family
of its birth to the family of its adoption. It
is mandatory for an adoption to be treated
as valid that two important conditions
mentioned in Section 11 of the Act of 1956
are present, i.e., the consent of wife
before a male Hindu adopts a child, and
proof of a ceremony of giving and taking
adoption. (Para 12)

B. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2) -
Adoption - Objections filed u/s 9-A(2)
by the petitioner on basis of a
registered
adoption
deed,
whereas
other two objections were filed on
basis of an unregistered will and on
basis
of
inheritance.
Consolidation
Officer rejected objections filed by the
petitioner
and
held
that
adoption
proceedings were not legal and were
not in accordance with law, as the
adoption deed was not signed by the
adopted mother. C.O. returned finding
that the wife of Bhuneshwar Singh
(adopted father) was not visible in
photographs.
Wife
of
Bhuneshwar
(adopted father) had not put her
signature or thumb impression on the
adoption
deed.
Even
the
wife
of
Subedar Singh (natural father) was
also absent, and as such, the said
document was not sufficient to prove
adoption.
Objection
on
basis
of
inheritance was only accepted. Appeal
of petitioner was allowed and held that
registered adoption deed was a valid
document and adoption was carried
out
by
a
due
legal
process.
A
registered
document
carries
presumption
unless
rebutted.
Settlement Officer Consolidation did
not refer to the presence of wife of the
adopted father and did not set aside
the
findings
returned
by
the
Consolidation
Officer.
Board
of
Revenue held that since the wife of
Bhuneshwar (adopted father) had not
signed
the
adoption
deed,
which
indicates that she had not given her
consent for adoption, which was a
mandatory
requirement.
Held
-
Adopted
father
and
mother
of
petitioner died prior to proceedings.
Wife of adopted father had not signed
the
adoption
deed,
and
the
photographs also indicate that she had
not participated in the ceremony. One
witness had not even identified her in
photographs, therefore, the Court was
of
the
opinion
that
mandatory
requirement that person who adopts a
child must have consent of his wife
was absent. Adoption was not legally
valid. (Para 18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Uttam Chandra & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2023:AHC:225752
12 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. D.D.C.
261
2. M. Vanaja Vs M. Sarla Devi(Dead), (2020) 5
SCC 307

3. Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs Gainedi Kaliprasad
(Dead, Through Lrs.), (2023) SCC OnLine SC
1488

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Somitra
Anand, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rahul
Sahai,
learned
counsel
for
contesting
respondents.

2. Present proceedings are arising out of
objections filed under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act. Petitioner filed
objection on basis of a registered adoption deed
dated 12.05.1967, whereas other two objections
were filed on basis of an unregistered will and
on basis of inheritance.

3. The Consolidation Officer by an order
dated 25.04.1977 rejected objections filed by
the
petitioner
and
held
that
adoption
proceedings were not legal and were not in
accordance with law so much as that adoption
deed was not signed by adopted mother,
therefore, a mandatory condition was not
complied with. Similarly, objections on basis of
an
unregistered
will
was
also
rejected.
Objection on basis of inheritance was only
accepted. Findings returned in regard to
adoption are reproduced hereinafter :-

"एडप्शन के प्रमाण में रदजस्टडा गोिनामा
िस्तावेज दिनांक 09.08.67 प्रस्तुत है। साथ ही एक फोटो
दजसे गोिनामा भी फोटो बताया जाता है, भी दिया गया है। इस
पर भवनेश्वर दसंह सुबेिार दसंह तथा उनकी पती के हस्ताक्षर है
एवं अंगूठा दनशान है। राम नरेश, सुिशान व राम लक्षन के
गवाह की हैदसयत से हस्ताक्षर है दकन्तु एस०आर० के समक्ष
पहचान के समय केवल राम नरेश व सुिशान उपदस्थत है।
साक्ष्य में भी यही िो गवाह आये। इनकी दनष्पक्षता के सम्बन्ि
में ऊपर दनष्कषा दनकाले जा चुके है। ऐस०आर० ने अपनी
तसिीक में स्पष्ट दकया है दक भुवनेश्वर दसंह पालकी के अन्िर
से िस्तावेज को स्वीकार दकया। इस प्रकार वे उस समय काफी
कम जोर थे उपरोि पररदस्थतयों, गोिनामों की कायावाही
संदिग्ि बनाती है। इस मुकिमा में प्रस्तुत अशोक आदि ने भी
यह अपने बयान में स्पष्ट दकया है दक ब्रम्हिेव जो सूबेिार के
भाई थे, गोिनामें की कायावाही के समय उपदस्थत थे। गोिनामें
के फोटो में उनका दचत्र सूबेिार के बगल में है। एस०पी० के
प्रमाण पत्र तथा उसके बयान से स्पष्ट है दक ब्रह्मिेव जो पदश्चमी
बंगाल में हुगली दजले में कान्स्टेबुल थे । दिनांक 12-5-67
से 14-5-67 तक अवकाश पर नहीं थे। गोि की कायावाही
जैसा दक गवाहों ने बयान दकया है दक तथा गोिनामा िस्तावेज
में अंदकत है। दिनांक 12-5-67 को हुई। बताया जाता है।
इस तरह एक संिेहास्पि दस्थदत पुनः सामने आती है या तो
गोिनामा की कायावाही दिनांक 12-5-67 से 14-5-67 के
पहले या बाि हुई इससे एक दनष्कषा और दनकाला जा सकता
है दक गोिनामा का फोटो बाि में सबूत के दलए बनाया गया ।

गोि के प्रमाण में जो फोटो दिया गया है उसकी
तसिीक फोटोग्राफर द्वारा नहीं करायी के सम्बन्ि में पूजा पाठ
की कायावाही में लगे पंदडत व नाऊ आदि को न ही गोि के
सत्यापन के दलए साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत दकया गया है और न फोटो
मे बताया गया है।

16 दहन्िू एजाप्शन एक्ट मेंदटनेन्स एक्ट में
पंजीकृत गोिनामा के िस्तावेज से गोि के सम्बन्ि में
दप्रजम्पशन करने का प्रादविान अवश्य है दकन्तु गोि का िावा
करने वालों पर तब भी तथा इससे पक्ष इसे रीबूट इसे सादबत
करने का भार अिालत रहता है क्योदक कर सकता है। उिक्षत
िारा के अनुसार केवल वह प्रीज्यूम दकया जा सकता है दक
दहन्िू एडप्शन एक्ट मेन्टीनेन्स एक्ट के प्रादविानो के अनुसार
गोि की कायावाही हुई है। इसके अदतररि कदपलिेव आदि की
ओर से इस गोिनामें के दवरूद्ध जो साक्ष्य एवं सबूत प्रस्तुत है
तथा गोिनामा के िस्तावेज एवं गवाहों के साक्ष्य है उससे
गोिनामा काफी संिेहास्पि दस्थत हो गयी है। इस प्रकार यदि
िस्तावेज के रदजस्टडा होने के कारण यदि गोिनामा के सम्बन्ि
में ही दलया जाय तो भी दववादित तथ्यों के आ जाने पर
अशोक की ओर से गोिनामा को सादबत करना चादहए था।
दकन्तु इसे उनकी ओर से सादबत नहीं दकया जा सकता है।

11 दहन्िू एडाप्शन एण्ड मेन्टीनंस एक्ट के
अनुसार गोि की वैिता के दलए यह आवश्यक है दक गोि में
दलया जाने वाले बच्चो को िोनों लेने व िेने वाले माता व
दपता वास्तव में िे लेवे इस मुकिमा में जो फोटो दिया गया है,
उसमें स्पष्ट नहीं होता दक िेने वाले सूबेिार व उनकी पत्नी ने
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
बच्चो को दिया है। फोटो में दजसे गोि का प्रमाण बताया जाता
है, में केवल सूबेिार बच्चों को पकडे हुए दिखाई िेते है। उनकी
पत्नी उनके साथ इसमें शरीक दिखाई नहीं िेती। इसी प्रकार
भूवनेश्वर व उनकी पत्नी को लेते हुए दिखाई नहीं आये है।
गोिनामा िस्तावेज पर केवल सूबेिार की औरत का अंगूठा
दनशानी बताया जाता है। भुवनेश्वर की पत्नी का अंगूठा दनशान
या हस्ताक्षर नहीं है। इस प्रकाश िारा 11 के उप खण्ड 6 का
पालन नहीं हुआ। गोि में अवैिता का िोष है तथा गोि सादबत
नहीं है। "

4.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
the
petitioner as well as other filed two appeals
before
Assistant
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation. The Appeal of petitioner was
allowed by an order dated 10.11.1982, that
registered adoption deed was valid document
and adoption was carried out by a due legal
process.
A
registered
document
carries
presumption unless rebutted. The relevant part
thereof so far as adoption is concerned is
reproduced hereinafter :-

"मैने दवद्वान अदिविाओं की बहस सुनी तथा
पत्रावली पर आए सबूत के अवलोकन से इस दनष्कषा पर
पहुूँचा दक पत्रावली पर आए कागजी व जबानी सबूत श्रीमती
दशव कुमारी व हरमुदनया भुवनेश्वर दसंह की लड़की सादबत है।
हरमुदनया के राजेन्र प्रसाि दसंह लड़के है। नकल पैिाइश
रदजस्टर िादखल है इसमें भुवनेश्वर दसंह के एक लड़की
25.08.31 की और िूसरी 13.03.34 की पैिा दिखाई है।
रदजस्टर िादखल खाररज में दशव कुमारी व हरमुदनया भुवनेश्वर
दसंह की लड़की िजा है। बैजनाथ दसंह रामगहन तथा हरमुदनया
के इस सम्बन्ि में बयान हुआ है। िूसरी ओर से इसके दवरूद्ध
कोई सबूत िादखल नहीं है। ब्रम्हा शंकर की तरफ से जो
वसीयत दिनांक 30.01.67 की िादखल की गयी है, वह
रदजस्िीशुिा िस्तावेज नहीं है। इसमें दलखने की तारीख को
मशकूक दकया गया है। यह तारीख िूसरी रोशनाई से दलखी
गयी है। इस िस्तावेज के आिार पर मकुिमा चलने के काफी
बाि में आपदत्त िायर की गई है। इन पररदस्थदतयों में इन
िस्तावेज संदिग्ि है तथा वैि नहीं माना जा सकता। जहां तक
गोिनामें का प्रश्न है, यह गोिनामा रदजस्िीशुिा िस्तावेज है। इस
पर गोि लेने वाले एवं िेने वाले के िस्तखत है। इसदलए िारा
16 दहन्िू एडाप्शन एवं मेन्टीनेंस एक्ट के अनुसार इसको वैि
माना जाएगा जब दक इसे अवैि न सादबत दकया जाय यह
दजम्मेिारी िूसरी पक्ष की थी। इस िस्तावेज को अवैि सादबत
नहीं दकया जा सकता है। रदजस्िार के समक्ष भुवनेश्वर दसंह ने
इसको स्वीकार दकया है। भुवनेश्वर दसंह के कमजोर होने से यह
िस्तावेज संदिग्ि नहीं माना जा सकता। गोिनामे की रसम भी
हुई है, दजसका फोटो कराया गया है। इस फोटो को गवाहान ने
सादबत दकया है। यह 12-5-67 को होना बताया गया है। िूसरा
पक्ष इस आिार पर इसे फजी कहता है दक इसमें ब्रम्हिेव दसंह
भी है जो उस दिन छुट्टी पर नहीं थे परन्तु 7-5-67 का जारी
दकया हुवा सुपररन्टेन्डेन्ट आफ पुदलस पदश्चमी बंगाल का
सटदफकेट है, दजसमें 7 दिन की छुट्टी ब्रम्हिेव दसंह को
स्वीकार की गयी है। एडवोकेट कदमश्नर द्वारा 3-4-76 को
एस०पी० हुगली का बयान िजा दकया गया है। यह बयान
पत्रावली पर िादखल है। इसमें कहा गया है दक ब्रम्हिेव दसंह
इस तारीख को अदजात अवकाश पर नहीं थे परन्तु आकदस्मक
अवकाश के सम्बन्ि में कोई कागजात उपलब्ि नहीं पाए गये।
भले ही ब्रम्हिेव दसंह अवकाश पर थे या नहीं परन्तु जो फोटो
िादखल दकया गया है, उसमें ब्रम्हिेव दसंह हैं। छुट्टी पर होने
या न होने से इसको फजी नहीं माना जा सकता । इस फोटो को
गवाहान ने सादबत दकया है।

इन पररदस्थदतयों में गोिनामें की कायावाही
सादबत है तथा गोि का िस्तावेज वैि है। इसके आिार पर
अशोक कुमार दसंह ही भुवनेश्वर दसंह का ित्तक पुत्र है। अन्य
आपदत्त कतााओं को कोई हक नहीं दमल सकता।"

5. The contesting respondents thereafter
filed a revision petition before the Board of
Revenue and by order dated 02.07.1983, which
was allowed and order passed by Settlement
Officer Consolidation was set aside and claim
of petitioner on basis of registered adoption
deed was rejected. Wife of Bhuneshwar Singh
(adopted father) has not signed on adoption
deed. The findings returned that adoption deed
was not proved. The relevant part thereof is
reproduced hereinafter :-

"श्री अशोक कुमार दसंह स्वयं को मृतक
भुवनेश्वर का ित्तक पुत्र बताते हैं । उनके कथन के समथान में
सुिशान दसंह व रामनरेश दसंह व सुवेिार दसंह का बयान हुवा
है। साक्ष्यों से स्पष्ट है दक सामनरेश व कदपल िेव से िुश्मनी है।
िोनों में मुकिमेबाजी हुई है। सुिशान ने स्वयं स्वीकार दकया है
दक अन्य मुकिमों में उन्होंने कदपलिेव आदि के दवरुद्ध गवाही
12 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. D.D.C.
263
िी है। सुवेिार अशोक कुमार के दपता है। इनकी गवाही
स्वभावतः इन्टरेस्टेड गवाही है। उि गवाहों के बयान के
अदतररि गोिानामा के प्रमाण में रदजस्िीशुिा गोिनामा दिनांक
9-8-67 प्रस्तुत दकया गया है । तवा साथ ही साथ एक फोटो
प्रस्तुत दकया गया है। दजसे गोिनामा में का फोटो बताया जाता
है। गोिनामें पर भुवनेश्वर दसंह तथा सुवेिार दसंह के पत्नी के
हस्ताक्षर है एवं अंगूठा दनशानी है। राम नरेश, सुिशान राम
लखन के गवाह की हैदसयत से हस्ताक्षर है। सब रदजस्िार के
समक्ष पहचान के समय केवल राम नरेश व सुिशान उपदस्थत
हुए हैं। अिीनस्थ न्यायालय में भी इन्हीं लोगों ने गवाही की है।
तब रदजस्िार ने अपने तस्िीक में उललेख दकया है दक भुवनेश्वर
ने पालकी के अन्िर से िस्तावेज को स्वीकार दकया । अशोक
कुमार के गवाहों ने अपने बयान में स्पष्ट दकया है दक ब्रम्हिेव
जो सुवेिार के भाई है, गोिनामा में की कायावाही के समय
उपदस्थत थे। गोिनामे के फोटो पर उनका दचत्र है, जो सुवेिार
के बगल मे है। पुदलस अिीक्षक का प्रमाण पत्र तथा उनके
ब्यान से स्पष्ट है दक ब्रम्हिेव पदश्चम बंगाल में हुगली दजले में
कान्स्टेबुल थे । इस प्रकार गोिनामा में को सादबत करने के
दलए गवाहों का ब्यान कराया गया है। फोटोग्राफ में ब्रम्हादसंह
सुवेिार के बगल में है। पुदलस अिीक्षक का स्थान कमीशन के
जररए दलया गया। ब्यान से स्पष्ट होता है दक ब्रम्हा दसह दिनाूँक
12-5-67 से 14-5-67 तक कोई अवकाश पर नहीं थे।
गोिनामा की कायावाही दिनांक 12-5-67 को हुई । इस
प्रकार एक सन्िेहास्पि दस्थदत सामने आ जाती है। या तो
गोिनामा की कायावाही दिनांक 12-5-67 से 14-5-67 के
पहले या बाि में हुई हो। जब ब्रम्हिेव दिनाूँक 12-5-67 से
14-5-67 तक अवकाश पर नहीं थे तो दिनांक 12-5-67
को वह गोिनामा के समय उपदस्थत कैसे हो सकते हैं ।

दनगरानीकताागण के दवद्वान अदिविा ने यह
बहस दकया दक पुदलस अिीक्षक का बयान ठीक नहीं हुआ है।
अतः उसे मानना न्यायसंगत न होगा । लेदकन पुदलस अिीक्षक
का बयान बजररये कमीशन हुआ है और एक अदिकारी के
बयान को न मानने का कोई कारण समक्ष में नहीं आता है
इससे स्पष्ट है दक जो फोटो िादखल दकया गया है, वह
सम्भवतः दकसी िादमाक अनुष्ठान का फोटो है, दजसमें सभी
लोग उपदस्थत थे और बाि में सम्भवतः सबूत बनाने के दलए
इसे िादखल कर दिया गया हो । जहाूँ तक गोिनामा का सवाल
है, िारा 16 दहन्िू एडाप्शन एक्ट में पंजीकृत गोिनामा के
सम्बन्ि में प्रीजम्पशन करने का प्रादविान अवश्य है दकन्तु यह
भी उदललदखत है दक गोिनामा का िावा करने वाले की उसे
दनदवावाि रूप से सादबत करने का तथा अन्य पक्षों को
दखलाफत करने का अदिकार है। मेरे समक्ष ए०डब्लू०सी०
1981, पृष्ठ 204 पर उदललदखत माननीय उच्च न्यायालय
की व्यवस्था प्रस्तुत की गयी इस व्यवस्था में यह उललेख है दक
यदि गोि लेने वाले व गोिनामा िेने वाले ने गोिनामा में पर
हस्ताक्षर दकया है तो गोिनामा में की रस्म सादवत करने के
दलए अन्य सबूत िेने की जरूरत नहीं है । 1977
ए०आई०वार० पृष्ठ ।। पर प्रित्त व्यवस्था का हवाला
दनगरानीकताा गण की ओर से िी गयी और कहा गया दक जब
तक िस्तावेज अवैि सादबत नहीं हो, उसे मानना होगा। इस
आिार पर दवद्वान अदिविा ने यह तका दकया दक िस्तावेज
गोिनामा में को वैि मानकर अदग्रम कायावाही करना न्याय
संगत होगी ।

परन्तु गोिनामे का ध्यानपूवाक अवलोकन करने
से दवदित होता है दक सभी पक्षों के गोिनामें पर हस्ताक्षर नहीं
है। प्रस्तुत स्थल पर गोिनामें के समय भुवनेश्वर दसंह की पत्नी
के हस्ताक्षर गोिनामें पर नहीं है जब दक साक्ष्यों से स्पष्ट है दक
भुवनेश्वर की पत्नी िस्तावेज गोिनामा दलखने के समय जीदवत
थी सूबेिार दसंह अशोक कुमार की गवाही में शादमल भी हुए
थे। ऐसा पररदस्थदत में उनका हस्ताक्षर गोिनामा पर अदनवाया है
। मुनेश्वर की पत्नी के गोिनामा में पर हस्ताक्षर न होने के कारण
गोिनामा में की प्रदिया दविानतः िूदषत हो जाती है और यह
िारा ।। के उप खण्ड 6 का उललंिन है। इसके अदतररि
कदपलिेव आदि की ओर से इस गोिनामें के दवरुद्ध जो
साक्ष्यादि प्रस्तुत हैं, उससे दस्थदत काफी सन्िेहास्पि हुई है और
ऐसी पररदस्थदत में अशोक कुमार की ओर से दनदवावाि रूप से
गोिनामा सादबत करना चादहए था । उत्तरवािीगण की ओर से
1956 ए०आई०आर० पृष्ठ 504, दकशोरी लाल बनाम मु०
चलती बाई वाि में उदललदखत माननीय सुप्रीम कोटा की
व्यवस्था प्रस्तुत की गयी है, दजसमें यह उललेख है दक चूंदक
गोिनामें के फलस्वरुप सारा स्वत्त्व और अदिकार िूसरे बच्चे में
स्थानान्तररत हो जाता है, गोिनामा में को दनदवावाि रुप से
सादबत होना आवश्यक है। प्रस्तुत स्थल पर ब्रम्हिेव का
गोिनामे के समय उपदस्थत होना, लेदकन स्वयं उनका अवकाश
पर न होना, फोटो का फोटोग्राफ आदि का तसिीक न
करवाना, भुवनेश्वर की पत्नी द्वारा गोिनामें पर हस्ताक्षर न
करना तथा गोिनामें को ग्राम के पुरोदहत तथा नाई आदि से
सादबत न करवाना यह सारी की सारी पररदस्थदतयां गोिनामें की
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
पूरी कायावाही को दववािग्रस्त बना िेता है और दववािग्रस्त
पररदस्थदत में गोिनामा को स्वीकार करना न तो न्याय संगत ही
कहा जा सकता है और न ही युदिसंगत कहा जा सकता है ।

अशोक कुमार की ओर से वरासत के प्रश्न पर
तहसीलिार के आिेश दिनांक 26-6-76 की नकल प्रस्तुत
की गयी है। यह आिेश सुपरवाइजर कानूनगो का है। इसे
न्यादयक आिेश नहीं माना जा सकता। इस प्रकार की प्रदवदष्टयों
का वरासत के प्रश्न पर दनणाय लेते समय कोई महत्व नहीं है ।
इस प्रकार गोिनामा के आिार पर दवशेषकर उस पररदस्थती मे
जब दक गोिनामा संदिग्ि है, अशोक कुमार के पक्ष में कोई
आिेश प्रित्त करना न्यायसंगत नहीं प्रतीत होता । दनगरानी स्तर
पर मेरे समक्ष मुकिमा नम्बर 282/77 सरकार बनाम
रामिादहन िारा 380 भा०िं०दव० व अिालत मुंदसफ
मदजस्िेट पूवी मैं दिए गए सूबेिार दसंह के ब्यान की नकल
प्रस्तुत की गयी है, दजसमें सूवेिार दसंह ने कहा है दक गोिनामा
कब हुआ, इसकी जानकारी उसे नहीं है। कहाूँ पर हुआ, इसकी
जानकारी उसे नहीं है। गोिनामा का संस्कार मेरे सामने नहीं
हुवा। मुझे रामगहन की गवाही के बावत तथा मुकिमा होने के
बावत कोई जानकारी नहीं है। उललेखनीय है दक अशोक कुमार
श्री सूवेिार दसंह के पुत्र हैं। स्वयं सूबेिार दसंह के इस बयान से
भी गोिनामे की पररदस्थदतयां अत्यन्त संदिग्ि हो जाती हैं।
सूबेिार दसंह ने स्वयं अपने बयान में कहा है दक इनके सामने
गोिनामें की रसम पूरी नहीं हुई थी। उनकी इस स्वीकारोदि के
समक्ष गोिनामें के सम्बन्ि में दिए गए सारे के सारे प्रमाण
दनरथाक हो जाते है। इस प्रकार गोिनामा मान्य नहीं कहा जा
सकता। "

6. The aforesaid order is challenged at the
behest of petitioner in present writ petition. This
Court by an order dated 26.08.1983 granted
stay, however, by an order dated 25.09.1992,
stay application was rejected since no one has
appeared on behalf of petitioner and according
to further order-sheet, it appears that interim
order was later on granted.

7. Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel
for petitioner submitted that adoption was
carried out in a due process and witnesses have
specifically stated that procedure was followed
and since it was a registered document as such
it has a presumption of its correctness. He
further submitted that Board of Revenue has
erroneously emphasised that photograph of
Brahma Shankar Singh during the adoption was
not possible since on that date he was on duty in
West Bengal, however, a certificate from
concerned Police Authority shows that he was
on leave on particular date on a special ground.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that
adopted father and mother of petitioner were
not alive during objections and biological father
of petitioner has recorded his statement that in
his presence adoption proceedings were carried
out, with consent of adopted father and mother
in presence of number of persons and after Puja
and Ceremony, a Bhoj was also organized.

9. Per contra, Sri Somitra Anand learned
counsel for contesting respondents submitted
that adoption deed has to be proved in terms of
provisions provided under the Maintenance and
Adoption Act 1956 and consent of wife of a
male who adopts a child was mandatory as well
as there must be proof of ceremony of actual
giving and taking adoption. However, in the
present case, signature of adopted mother was
neither on adoption deed nor she was present at
the time of its registration. Adopted father has
given his consent while sitting in a " ̃Palki"TM
at the time of registration.

10. Learned counsel further referred
findings returned by Board of Revenue that on
basis of evidence of biological father, adoption
procedure could not be proved. In photographs
of ceremony placed on record, adopted mother
was not seen as well as witnesses produced
were interested. The other relevant witnesses
such as " ̃Pandit and Nau"TM were not even
produced.

11.
I
have
considered
the
above
submissions and perused the record. Before
considering
the
rival
submission,
few
paragraphs of a judgment passed by this Court
in case of Uttam Chandra and 2 others Vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
10
others,
2023:AHC:225752 would be relevant, wherein
judgments of Supreme Court in M. Vanaja Vs
M. Sarla Devi(Dead), (2020) 5 SCC 307,
Moturu
Nalini
Kanth
Vs.
Gainedi
12 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. D.D.C.
265
Kaliprasad (Dead, Through Lrs.), (2023)
SCC OnLine SC 1488 were followed and its
relevant paragraphs are mentioned hereinafter:-

M. Vanaja (supra) :-

"13. Section 6 of the 1956 Act,
prescribes the prerequisites for a valid
adoption, which are:

"6. Requisites of a valid adoption.""
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."•

14. Section 7 provides that the male
Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor
has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in
adoption. The consent of his wife has been
made mandatory by the proviso to Section 7.
Section 9 deals with persons who are capable of
giving a child in adoption. The other conditions
for a valid adoption are stipulated in Section 11
of the 1956 Act. One such condition is Section
11(vi) which is as under:

"11. Other conditions for a valid
adoption."""¦

***

(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:

Provided that the performance of
datta homan shall not be essential to the
validity of an adoption."•

15. A plain reading of the above
provisions would make it clear that compliance
of the conditions in Chapter I of the 1956 Act is
mandatory for an adoption to be treated as
valid. The two important conditions as
mentioned in Sections 7 and 11 of the 1956 Act
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. The
appellant admitted in her evidence that she does
not have the proof of the ceremony of giving
and taking of her in adoption. Admittedly, there
is no pleading in the plaint regarding the
adoption being in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. That apart, the
respondent who is the adoptive mother has
categorically stated in her evidence that the
appellant was never adopted though she was
merely brought up by her and her husband.
Even the grandmother of the appellant who
appeared before the Court as PW 3 deposed
that the appellant who lost her parents in her
childhood was given to the respondent and her
husband to be brought up. PW 3 also stated in
her evidence that the appellant was not adopted
by the respondent and her husband. Therefore,
the appellant had failed to prove that she had
been adopted by the respondent and her
husband Narasimhulu Naidu.

16. The appellant relied upon a
judgment of this Court in L. Debi Prasad [L.
Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi, (1970) 1 SCC
677] to submit that abundant evidence
submitted by her before the Court would point
to the fact that she was brought up as the
daughter of the respondent and her husband
(Late) Narasimhulu Naidu. Such evidence can
be taken into account to draw inference that she
was adopted by them. The facts in L. Debi
Prasad [L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi, (1970)
1 SCC 677] are similar to those in the instant
case. In that case, Shyam Behari Lal was
adopted by Gopal Das in the year 1892 when he
was an infant. Shyam Behari Lal was unable to
establish the actual adoption but has produced
considerable documentary evidence to show
that he was treated as the son of Gopal Das for
a quarter of century. This Court accepted the
submission of Shyam Behari Lal and held that
there was sufficient evidence on record to infer
a valid adoption. Though the facts are similar,
we are unable to apply the law laid down in L.
Debi Prasad [L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi,
(1970) 1 SCC 677] to the instant case. L. Debi
Prasad [L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi, (1970)
1 SCC 677] case pertains to adoption that took
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
place in the year 1892 and we are concerned
with an adoption that has taken place after the
1956 Act has come into force. Though the
appellant has produced evidence to show that
she was treated as a daughter by (Late)
Narasimhulu Naidu and the defendant, she has
not been able to establish her adoption. The
mandate of the 1956 Act is that no adoption
shall be valid unless it has been made in
compliance with the conditions mentioned in
Chapter I of the 1956 Act. The two essential
conditions i.e. the consent of the wife and the
actual ceremony of adoption have not been
established. This Court by its judgment in
Ghisalal v. Dhapubai [Ghisalal v. Dhapubai,
(2011) 2 SCC 298 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 411]
held that the consent of the wife is mandatory
for proving adoption.

Moturu Nalini Kanth(supra): -

"36. The presumption, as is clear
from the provision itself, is rebuttable. In G.
Vasu v. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri, AIR 1987
AP 139, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court pointed out that presumptions are
of two kinds - presumptions of fact and of law.
It was noted that a presumption of fact is an
inference logically drawn from one fact as to
the
existence
of
other
facts
and
such
presumptions of fact are rebuttable by evidence
to the contrary. It was also held that
presumptions of law may be either irrebuttable,
so that no evidence to a contrary may be given,
or rebuttable, and a rebuttable presumption of
law is a legal rule to be applied by the Courts in
the absence of conflicting evidence. This view
was affirmed by this Court in Bharat Barrel &
Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand
Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35, and it was held that
in order to disprove a presumption, such facts
and circumstances have to be brought on
record, upon consideration of which, the Court
may either believe that the consideration did
not exist or its non-existence was so probable
that a prudent man would, under the
circumstances of the case, act upon the plea
that it did not exist.

37. In this regard, we may also note
that Section 11 of the Act of 1956 stipulates the
conditions to be complied with to constitute a
valid adoption and, to the extent relevant, it
reads as under:

" ̃11. Other conditions for a valid
adoption. - In every adoption, the following
conditions must be complied with:"•

(i) to (v) "¦.;

(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:

Provided that the performance of
datta homam shall not be essential to the
validity of adoption"TM

38. We may now take note of
relevant case law. In Laxmibai (Dead) through
LRs. v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through Lrs.,
(2013) 4 SCC 97, this Court held that the mere
signature or thumb impression on a document
is not adequate to prove the contents thereof
but, in a case where a person who has given his
son in adoption appears in the witness box and
proves the validity of the said document, the
Court ought to accept the same taking into
consideration the presumption under Section 16
of the Act of 1956. Ergo, the proving of the
validity of the document is a must.

39. Much earlier, in Kishori Lal v.
Mst. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504, a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court held that, as an adoption
results in changing the course of succession, it
is necessary that the evidence to support it
should be such that it is free from all suspicions
of fraud and so consistent and probable as to
leave no occasion for doubting its truth. On
facts, the Bench found that no invitations were
sent to the brotherhood, friends or relations and
no publicity was given to the adoption,
rendering it difficult to believe.

40. In Govinda v. Chimabai, AIR
1968 Mys 309, a Division Bench of the Mysore
High Court observed that the mere fact that a
deed of adoption has been registered cannot be
taken as evidence of proof of adoption, as an
adoption deed never proves an adoption. It was
rightly held that the factum of adoption has to
12 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. D.D.C.
267
be proved by oral evidence of giving or taking
of the child and that the necessary ceremonies,
where they are necessary to be performed, were
carried out in accordance with shastras.

41.
In
Padmalav
Achariya
v.
Srimatyia Fakira Debya, AIR 1931 PC 81, the
Privy Council found that a cloud of suspicion
rested upon an alleged second adoption and the
factum of the second adoption was sought to be
proved on the basis of evidence of near
relatives who were also partisan, which made it
unsafe to act upon their testimonies. The Privy
Council held that both the adoptions were most
improbable in themselves and were not
supported by contemporaneous evidence.

42. In Jai Singh v. Shakuntala,
(2002) 3 SCC 634, this Court noted the
statutory presumption envisaged by Section 16
of the Act of 1956 and observed that though the
legislature had used " ̃shall"TM instead of any
other word of lesser significance, the inclusion
of the words " ̃unless and until it is
disproved"TM appearing at the end of the
statutory provision makes the situation not that
rigid but flexible enough to depend upon the
evidence available on record in support of the
adoption. This Court further noted that it is a
matter of grave significance by reason of the
factum of adoption and displacement of the
person adopted from the natural succession -
thus onus of proof is rather heavy. This Court
held that the statute allowed some amount of
flexibility, lest it turns out to be solely
dependent on a registered adoption deed. The
reason for inclusion of the words " ̃unless and
until it is disproved"TM, per this Court, have to
be ascertained in proper perspective and as
such, the presumption cannot but be said to be
a rebuttable presumption. This Court further
held that the registered instrument of adoption
presumably stands out to be taken to be correct
but the Court is not precluded from looking into
it upon production of some evidence contra the
adoption and the Court can always look into
such evidence. This Court further noted the
mandate of Section 11 (vi) of the Act of 1956
and held that the " ̃give and take in
adoption"TM is a requirement which stands as a
sine qua non for a valid adoption.

43. In Mst. Deu v. Laxmi Narayan,
(1998) 8 SCC 701, this Court observed 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.

44. In Lakshman Singh Kothari v.
Rup Kanwar (Smt) alias Rup Kanwar Bai, AIR
1961 SC 1378, having referred to texts on
Hindu Law, this Court observed:

" ̃10. The law may be briefly stated
thus : Under the Hindu law, whether among the
regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot
be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is
transferred from one family to another and that
can be done only by the ceremony of giving and
taking. The object of the corporeal giving and
receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due
publicity. To achieve this object, it is essential
to have a formal ceremony. No particular form
is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law
requires that the natural parent shall hand over
the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall
receive him. The nature of the ceremony may
vary depending upon the circumstances of each
case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving
and taking shall be part of it. The exigencies of
the
situation
arising
out
of
diverse
circumstances necessitated the introduction of
the doctrine of delegation; and, therefore, the
parents, after exercising their volition to give
and take the boy in adoption, may both or either
of them delegate the physical act of handing
over the boy or receiving him, as the case may
be, to a third party."TM

45. In M. Vanaja v. M. Sarla Devi
(Dead), (2020) 5 SCC 307, this Court took note
of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1956 and
held that a plain reading of the said provisions
made it clear that compliance with the
conditions in Chapter 1 of the Act of 1956 is
mandatory for an adoption to be treated as
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
valid and that the two important conditions
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 the proof of the
ceremony of actual giving and taking in
adoption.

46. In Dhanno wd/o Balbir Singh v.
Tuhi Ram (Died) represented by his Lrs, AIR
1996 P&H 203, a learned Judge of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court, faced with the
argument that Section 16 of the Act of 1956
required a registered adoption deed to be
believed, held that the presumption thereunder,
if any, is rebuttable and by merely placing the
document on record without proving the
ceremony of due adoption, it could not be said
that there was a valid adoption. The learned
Judge rightly noted that the factum of adoption
must be proved in the same way as any other
fact and such evidence in support of the
adoption must be sufficient to satisfy the heavy
burden that rests upon any person who seeks to
displace the natural succession by alleging an
adoption."•
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. As referred above it is mandatory for
an adoption to be treated as valid that two
important conditions mentioned in Section 11
of Act of 1956 are present i.e. the consent of
wife before male hindu adopt a child and prove
of a ceremony of giving and taking adoption.

13. It is on record that adopted father and
mother of petitioner died prior to proceedings.
During proceedings statement of Subedar Singh
(biological father of petitioner) was recorded
wherein he has stated that during adoption
proceeding parents of both sides were present
including the wife of adopted father, however,
witnesses have stated that at the time of
registration of the adoption deed, adopted
mother (wife of adopted father) was not present.

14. The Court also perused the statement
of Sudarshan Singh who has stated that he was
witness to ceremony and parents of both sides
were present and he was also a signatory to
registered document, however, he has also
stated that wife of Bhunshwar Singh was
present during registration.

15. Similarly, other witness Ram Naresh
though stated that he recognized Bhuneshwar
Singh and his wife, however, not able to
identify them from photographs. The said
witness did not know her name (wife of
Bhuneshwar Singh).

16. I have also perused the orders passed
by the Consolidation Officer and that a finding
was returned that adoption process was not
legally followed and essential conditions were
absent as wife of Bhuneshwar Singh was not
visible in photographs. Even the wife of
Subedar Singh (natural father) was also absent.
The wife of Bhuvneswar (adopted father) has
not put her signature or thumb impression on
adoption deed and as such the said document
was not sufficient to prove adoption.

17. The Settlement Officer Consolidation
has not referred about presence of wife of
adopted father and has not set aside the above
referred findings returned by Consolidation
Officer and only on ground that presence of
Brahmdev Singh could not be doubted,
disturbed
the
findings
returned
by
the
Consolidation Officer. The Board of Revenue
has considered the material and specifically
held that a mandatory requirement was not
completed since the wife of Bhuvneshwar has
not even signed on adoption deed which
indicates that she has not given her consent for
adoption, which was a mandatory requirement.
The Board of Revenue has also considered the
statements of witnesses that they were not
sufficient to prove the adoption ceremony.

18. In the aforesaid circumstances, it could
be held without any doubt that wife of adopted
father has not signed the adoption deed as well as
the photographs also indicate that she has not
participated in the ceremony. One witness has not
even identified her in photographs, therefore, the
Court is of considered opinion that mandatory
requirement that person who adopts a child must
have consent of his wife was absent.
12 All. Bhagwan Bux Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.
269

19.
The
Consolidation
Officer
has
returned a finding to this effect and rejected the
objection of petitioner, however, without even
referring to it as well as without disturbing it,
the Settlement Officer Consolidation has erred
in causing interference and wrongly allowed the
objections of the petitioner. The said error was
rightly cured by Board of Revenue and by a
very detailed reasoned order has set aside the
order passed by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation and upheld the findings returned
by the Consolidation Officer that adoption was
conducted without permission and consent of
wife of adopted father. She has not even signed
the adoption deed, therefore, adoption was not
legally valid.

20. The aforesaid findings returned by the
Board of Revenue are in terms of above
referred judgment Uttam Chandra (supra) and
since there are evidence which has not been
contradicted, that adoption proceedings were
conducted without consent of wife of person
who adopted the child, therefore, mandatory
requirement was not fulfilled as well as nature
of evidence has also not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that ceremony of giving and
taking was under taken.

21. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of considered opinion that there is no
reason to interfere with reasoned order passed
by Board of Revenue as the mandatory
requirement for valid adoption were not
followed, therefore, this writ petition is
dismissed.

22. The Court extends apology to litigants
since this writ petition is being decided after
more than four decades.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 269
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.
Writ B No. 15803 of 1981

Bhagwan Bux Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Krishna Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., D.S. Pandey

A. Civil Law - Indian Succession Act,
1925- Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act,
1872 -Section 68 - Proof of Execution of
Will - A Will has to be proved in terms of
Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925,
and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872. In order to prove the Will u/s 68 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, at least one
attesting witness has to come forward to
prove the Will. Execution of Will cannot be
proved and a Will cannot be used as
evidence until one attesting witness at
least is examined and has been called for
the purpose of proving its execution, if
there be an attesting witness alive, and
subject to the process of the Court and
capable of giving evidence. (Para 26)

B. Civil Law - Will - Land in question was
of one Balidan Singh, which was later on
inherited by one Sheodin Singh. Plaintiff /
Respondent No. 4 claimed that Sheodin
Singh has executed a Will deed in his
favour and, on the basis of said Will deed,
instituted a suit under Section 229B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, claiming Bhumidhari
rights. Plaintiff / Respondent No. 4 was
declared
co-bhumidhar.
Petitioner's
appeal was dismissed. Second Appeal was
also dismissed. Held: One of the attesting
witnesses had died before the suit was
filed; however, it is not on record whether
the other attesting witness was alive or
not. Trial Court decided the issue on the
basis of the statement of PW-1 Ranjeet
Singh, brother of Brijlal (since deceased),
a marginal witness to the Will, and he
proved the signatures of his brother.
There is no finding that the other attesting