# Jagdish v. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 519
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 9423 of 1984
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-v-sahayak-sanchalak-chakbandi-adhikari-ors-51236
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 12 - Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
Sections 6 & 16 - Registration Act, 1908 -
Section 17 - Unregistered Adoption Deed
Dated 25.10.1974 - Richpal Singh, who
was recorded over the chak, died on
21.1.1975; petitioner filed an application
u/s 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act claiming that
he was adopted by Richpal Singh through
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the adoption deed dated 25.10.1974 and
is thus entitled to be recorded in his place;
the respondents (Richpal's sisters) also
filed an application claiming their rights.
Adoption was found duly proved by oral and
documentary evidence. Alit was clearly St.d
in the adoption deed that Richpal's wife had
left his house about 18-20 years earlier, and
there was no evidence that she was alive or
living with him at the time of adoption, so
the finding that her consent was necessary
was wrong; further, as the amendment to
Section 16 came into effect only from
1.1.1977, the registration of the adoption
deed was not required before that date;
accordingly, the appellate and revisional
orders were set aside, and the Consolidation
Officer's order in favour of the petitioner
was upheld.

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Jagdish Vs. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari & Ors.
519
impersonation, it would make the sale deed
voidable, but not void. As such, in view of
the law laid down by this Court in Gorakh
Nath Dube (supra), the Sale Deed dated
09.08.2016
will
be
binding
on
the
Consolidation Authorities unless it is set
aside by a competent Civil Court and there
would be no bar on jurisdiction of the Civil
Court to try a suit for cancellation of such
a sale deed."

23.
In
light
of
the
aforesaid
discussions, this Court is of the clear view
that impugned order dated 27.08.2024
passed by the DDC, Shravasti in Revision
No.412 of 2023 is not sustainable and,
accordingly, it is set aside. The revision
shall stand restored on the Board of the
DDC concerned.

24. A direction is issued to the DDC,
Shravasti that it shall after affording full
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned shall decide the revision afresh
taking note of the decisions referred hereinabove and after taking note of the
respective
submissions
advanced
by
learned counsel for the respective parties
and decide the revision preferably within a
period of three months from the date a
certified copy of this order is placed before
the authority concerned.

25. It is also made clear that the
impugned order has been set aside purely
on the ground that the DDC had no
jurisdiction to abate the proceedings
directing the parties to get their rights
adjudicated in the civil court without
considering the twice impact of the two
sale deeds and without recording a finding
whether the two deeds were void or
voidable and how the law operate. This fact
apart, the Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits insofar as the respective
rights of the parties are concerned, which is
left open to be considered by the DDC.

26. It is further provided that till the
decision of the DDC in terms of this order,
the parties shall maintain status quo that is
to say that none of the parties will alienate,
change the nature of the property or create
any third party right.

27. With the aforesaid, both the writ
petition No.1190 of 2024 and 1192 of 2024
are allowed.

28. Costs are made easy.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 519
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 9423 of 1984

Jagdish ...Petitioner
Versus
Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. C.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh, Addl. C.S.C.,
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 12 - Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
Sections 6 & 16 - Registration Act, 1908 -
Section 17 - Unregistered Adoption Deed
Dated 25.10.1974 - Richpal Singh, who
was recorded over the chak, died on
21.1.1975; petitioner filed an application
u/s 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act claiming that
he was adopted by Richpal Singh through
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the adoption deed dated 25.10.1974 and
is thus entitled to be recorded in his place;
the respondents (Richpal's sisters) also
filed an application claiming their rights.
Adoption was found duly proved by oral and
documentary evidence. Alit was clearly St.d
in the adoption deed that Richpal's wife had
left his house about 18-20 years earlier, and
there was no evidence that she was alive or
living with him at the time of adoption, so
the finding that her consent was necessary
was wrong; further, as the amendment to
Section 16 came into effect only from
1.1.1977, the registration of the adoption
deed was not required before that date;
accordingly, the appellate and revisional
orders were set aside, and the Consolidation
Officer's order in favour of the petitioner
was upheld.

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Smt. Reena Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
Petition No. 25238 (S/S) of 2018

2. Govind Kausik & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ A No. 10686 of 2024, dated 29.07.2024

3. Neerja & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ A No.
9970 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024

4. Jitendra Singh Rajput & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., Writ A No. 11049 of 2024

5. Sarita Rani & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ A
No. 19345 of 2018, order dated 12.09.2018

6. U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & ors.
Vs Daya Ram Saroj & ors., (2007) 2 SCC 138

7. Mary Pushpam Vs Televi Curusunary & ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 9941 of 2016

8. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs Dr. Shri Krishan
Sinha & ors., AIR 1960 SC 1186

9. Charanjit Lal Vs U.O.I., AIR 1951 SC 41

10. U.O.I. Vs Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving
Co. Ltd., (2001) 1 SCC 139
11. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Sandeep Kumar Singh
& ors., (2010) 12 SCC 794

12. St. of M.P. Vs Narmada Bachao Andolan &
anr., (2011) 7 SCC 639

13. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav & anr., (2005) 2 SCC 42

14. Bilkis Yakub Rasool Vs U.O.I., (2024) 5 SCC
481

15. Census Commissioner & ors. Vs R.
Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796

16. Ramesh Chandra Sharma & ors. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors., (2024) 5 SCC 217

17. Association for Democratic Reforms & anr.
(Electoral Bond Scheme) v. U.O.I. & ors., (2024)
5 SCC 1

18. Senior Superintendent of Post Office Vs
Izhar Hussain, (1989) 4 SCC 318

19. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Anand Kumar Yadav,
SLP No. 32599 of 2015

20. Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra Vs St. of
Orissa & ors., (2014) 4 SCC 583

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. C.B. Singhal, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos.
3 & 4 and Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh,
learned
Addl.
C.S.C.
for
the
staterespondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
village Kapoorpur, Pargana + Tehsil-
Hapur, District Ghaziabad came under the
operation of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to
as U.P. C.H. Act"). In the basic year of
consolidation operation, Richpal Singh was
recorded over chak no.10. Richpal Singh
12 All. Jagdish Vs. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari & Ors.
521
expired on 21.1.1975. Respondent nos. 3 &
4 filed an application under Section 12 of
the U.P. C.H. Act, stating that they are the
sisters of deceased Richpal Singh, as such,
they are entitled to be recorded in place of
Richpal Singh. Petitioner also filed an
application under the guardianship of his
natural mother Smt. Shanti Devi under
Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act, stating that
petitioner was adopted by Richpal Singh on
25.10.1974 on the basis of adoption deed
executed
on
25.10.1974,
accordingly,
petitioner is entitled to be recorded in place
of Richpal Singh. The aforementioned
applications under Section 12 of the U.P.
C.H. Act were registered as Case No.4/75375/2012, Mst. Imriti vs. Richpal Singh.
Both
the
parties
adduced
oral
and
documentary evidence in support of their
cases. Two issues were framed before the
Consolidation Officer. The 1st issue was as
to whether Smt. Imriti and Smt. Gomti are
entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal
Singh as sisters of deceased Richpal Singh
and 2nd issue framed was whether
petitioner Jagdish is entitled to be recorded
in place of Richpal Singh, on the basis of
adoption deed alleged to be executed in his
favour
by
Richpal
Singh.
The
Consolidation Officer, considering the
evidence adduced by both the parties, has
held that petitioner is entitled to be
recorded on the basis of adoption deed and
claim set up by respondent nos. 3 & 4 Mst.
Imriti Devi and Mst. Gomti Devi was
rejected vide order dated 4.6.1982. Against
the order of the Consolidation Officer dated
4.6.1982, an appeal under Section 11(1) of
the U.P. C.H. Act was filed before the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation by
respondent no. 3 which was registered as
Appeal No.197 (Mst. Imriti Devi vs.
Jagdish and Others). The Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
heard
the
aforementioned appeal and vide order dated
16.9.1983, allowed the appeal filed by
respondent no.3 and directed to record the
name of respondent nos. 3 & 4 / Mst. Imriti
Devi and Mst. Gomti Devi in place of
deceased Richpal Singh. Against the
appellate order dated 16.9.1983, a revision
under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act was
filed by petitioner Jagdish which was
registered as Revision No.1480. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation under the
impugned order dated 19.6.1984 dismissed
the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence,
this writ petition for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari, calling upon
the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 to submit
their record to the Hon'ble High Court
for ascertaining the illegality, if any, and
for quashing the order dated 16.9.1983
"Anneuxre No.3" and order dated
19.6.1984 "Annexure No.4"."

3. This Court entertained the matter on
13.7.1984 and stayed the dispossession of
the petitioner from the land in dispute. In
pursuance of the order dated 13.7.1984,
parties have exchanged their affidavits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that adoption deed in question
dated
25.10.1974
does
not
require
registration,
as
such,
the
impugned
appellate order as well as revisional order
passed by the appellate court / revisonal
court, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
He further submitted that Richpal Singh in
the adoption deed has mentioned that there
was no issue from the wedlock of Richpal
Singh and his wife and Richpal Singh was
deserted by his wife. He also submitted that
there is no evidence on record that wife of
Richpal Singh was alive at the time of
execution of adoption deed, as such, the
finding recorded by respondent nos. 1 & 2
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that consent of natural mother was
necessary,
is
erroneous.
He
further
submitted the evidence on record fully
demonstrates that adoption took place and
adoption deed was properly executed. He
further submitted that respondent nos. 1 &
2 have not considered the evidence filed at
the instance of the petitioner in the form
of irrigation receipt, revenue receipts,
certificate from the headmaster of the
school, kutumb register, etc. He further
placed the provisions contained under
Section 58 of the Evidence Act in order
to demonstrate that the impugned orders
have been passed by the respondent nos.
1 & 2 in arbitrary manner. He further
submitted that there is no pleadings
before the consolidation authorities that
the wife of Richpal Singh was alive at the
time of execution of adoption deed. He
submitted that the impugned orders
passed by respondent nos. 1 & 2 be set
aside and the order passed by the
Consolidation Officer be maintained. He
also placed reliance on the decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, of this Court
and that of the Delhi High Court in
support of his arguments:-

"1. AIR 1995 Supreme Court
995,
N.
Jayalakshmi
Ammal
and
Another vs. R. Gopala Pathar and
Another;

2. 1993 0 Supreme (SC) 180,
Ram Bilas and Another vs. Jagat Narain
Shrivastava (dead) by Lrs.;

3. AIR 1967 Supreme Court
1134, Ramrati Kuer vs. Dwarika Prasad
Singh and Others;

4. AIR 1973 Allahabad 507,
Bihari vs. The State of U.P.;

5. AIR 1982 Delhi 520, Nanak
Chand and Others vs. Chander Kishore
and Ohters;

6. AIR 1983 Supreme Court
114, Madhusudan Das vs. Smt. Narayani
Bai and Others; &

7. AIR 1961 Supreme Court
1378, Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Smt.
Rup Kanwar."

5. On the other hand, Sri Anil Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos.
3 & 4 submitted that no interference is
required against the impugned order passed
by respondent nos. 1 & 2. He further
submitted that the adoption deed was never
executed by Richpal Singh. He submitted
that the alleged adoption deed is not
registered, as such, no reliance can be
placed upon the same. He also submitted
that Richpal Singh was married with Smt.
Musti who was alive at the time of alleged
execution of adoption deed but no consent
of Smt. Musti was taken, as such, the
adoption deed cannot be relied upon. He
further submitted that in view of the
provisions contained under Section 7 of the
Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956,
there is no illegality in the impugned order
passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. He also
submitted that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have
recorded concurrent finding of fact, that
adoption deed was not executed in
accordance with the provision of the Act,
as such, the same cannot be relied upon. He
submitted that Richpal Singh died within
25
days
from
the
alleged
adoption
ceremony, as such, the adoption deed is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
He submitted that unregistered adoption
deed dated 25.10.1974 is forged and
fictitious document, hence, no title will
accrue in favour petitioner on the basis of
the
alleged
adoption
deed
dated
25.10.1974.
He
submitted
that
no
interference is required in the matter and
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
He placed reliance upon the following
12 All. Jagdish Vs. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari & Ors.
523
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and
that of this Court in order to demonstrate
that the adoption deed alleged to be
executed by Richpal Singh in favour of
respondent nos. 3 and 4, cannot be relied
upon:-

1.
AIR
2008
SC
1056,
Brajendra Singh vs. State of M.P., &

2. AIR 2021 Allahabad 19,
Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and
Others.

6. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact
that the claim under Section 12 of the U.P.
C.H. Act set up by the petitioner as well as
respondent nos. 3 & 4 was decided by the
Consolidation Officer for recording the
name of the petitioner on the basis of
adoption deed dated 25.10.1974 and
rejecting the claim of respondent nos. 3 and
4. There is also no dispute about the fact
that in appeal filed by respondent nos. 3 &
4, the order of the Consolidation Officer,
has been set aside and respondent nos. 3 &
4 were ordered to be recorded as legal heirs
of Richpal Singh. There is also no dispute
about the fact that the revision filed by the
petitioner against the appellate order, has
been
dismissed
under
the
impugned
revisional order dated 19.6.1984.

8.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, perusal
of Sections 6 and 16 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 will
be relevant which are as under:-

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.

16.
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.

STATE AMENDMENT

Uttar
Pradesh.-
Renumber
Section 16 as sub-section (1) thereof, and
after sub-section (1) as so re-numbered,
insert the following sub-section (2),
namely:-

"(2) In case of an adoption
made on or after the first day of
January, 1977 on Court in Uttar Pradesh
shall accept any evidence in proof of the
giving and taking of the child in
adoption, except a document recording
an adoption, made and signed by the
person giving and the person taking the
child in adoption, and registered under
any law for the time being in force;

Provided
that
secondary
evidence of such document shall be
admissible in the circumstances and the
manner
laid
down
in
the
Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).". [Vide
Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, s. 35]"
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. In the instant matter, the title
objection was filed on behalf of the
petitioner on the basis of adoption deed
dated 25.10.1974. The original copy of the
adoption deed was filed before the
Consolidation Officer. The issue relating to
adoption
deed
was
framed
by
the
Consolidation Officer and both the parties
adduced oral and documentary evidence in
support of their cases. The Consolidation
Officer, considering the evidence adduced
by the parties, recorded finding of fact that
adoption deed has been rightly executed
and there is no necessity for the registration
of the adoption deed. The Consolidation
Officer, accordingly, ordered to record the
name of the petitioner in place of Richpal
Singh, on the basis of adoption deed dated
25.10.1974.

10. The appellate court has set aside
the order of the Consolidation Officer on
misconceived grounds that adoption deed
has not been executed in accordance with
the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, as such, the same
cannot be relied upon. The finding recorded
by the appellate court/Settlement Officer of
Consolidation cannot be sustained in the
eye of law as the adoption has been found
to be proved before the Consolidation
Officer,
considering
the
oral
and
documentary evidence adduced by the
parties.

11. It is also material to mention that
in the adoption deed dated 25.10.1974 it
was clearly mentioned by Rich Pal Singh
that his wife has left his house as well as
marital relationship about 18-20 year
before & there are no male or female
child from their wedlock, as such, he is
adopting Jagdish son of Omvir & Smt.
Shanti Devi who have given Jagdish in
adoption to me. The aforementioned
adoption deed dated 25.10.1974 has been
proved by the witnessess in proper
manner.

12. So far as presence of wife of
Richpal Singh at the time of execution of
adoption deed is consern, the clearcut
averment has been made by Richpal
Singh
in
the
adoption deed dated
25.10.1974 that his wife has left his
house about 18-20 year before. There is
no evidence on record that wife of
Richpal Singh was residing alongwith
Richpal at the time of execution of
adoption deed or even after execution of
adoption deed as such the order passed by
Settlement Officer Consolidation for
rejecting the claim of petitioner on the
basis of adoption deed is wholly illegal.

13. It is also material to mention that
in the adoption deed it was mentioned
that Jagdish has become owner of entire
movable
&
immovable
property
belonging to Richpal Singh, as such there
is no illegality in the execution of
adoption deed dated 25.10.1974.

14. It is also material that the U.P.
Amendment in Section 16 has taken place
in the year 1976 which was made
operative
w.e.f.
1.1.1977,
as
such,
according to the provisions contained
under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956, there shall
be presumption that adoption has been
made in compliance of the provisions of
the Act unless and until it is disproved. In
the instant matter, the adoption deed was
executed on 25.10.1974, as such, non
registration of the adoption deed in
question will not make any difference.

15. In view of the finding of fact
recorded by the Consolidation Officer,
12 All. Ram Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
525
there was no scope for interference by the
appellate court to ignore the adoption deed
executed on 25.10.1974.

16.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has not decided the revision
in proper manner and maintained the
appellate order for recording the name of
contesting respondent in place of Richpal
Singh.

17. This Court in the case reported in
(2024) 164 RD 226, Munder vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and Others has
considered the provisions of Section 16 of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 as well as Sections-17 of the
Registration
Act
and
has
held
that
registration was not required prior to
1.1.1977 with respect to execution of
adoption deed.

18. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, as mentioned
above, the impugned appellate order dated
16.9.1983 and the revisional order dated
19.6.1984 are liable to be set aside and the
same are hereby set aside.

19. The writ petition stands allowed.
The order passed by the Consolidation
Officer dated 4.6.1982 is hereby affirmed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 525
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 24124 of 2021

Ram Sharan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashok Kumar Singh, Sanjeev Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vikas Singh

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 -
Cheque dishonour - "Legally enforceable
debt or liability" - Advance cheque not
issued in discharge of existing debt -
Complaint not maintainable - Mandatory
inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. not held
- High Court's inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. discussed-Proceedings
and
Summoning
order
quashedApplication allowed. (Paras 91 to 97)

HELD:
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the
High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it
comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of
the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The saving of the High Court's
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public
purpose which is that a court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon
of harassment or persecution. In a criminal
case,
the
veiled
object
behind
a
lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material on
which the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in quashing
the proceeding in the interest of justice. The
ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice has got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. The
compelling
necessity
for
making
these
observations is that without a proper realization
of the object and purpose of the provision which
seeks to save the inherent powers of the High
Court to do justice between the St. and its
subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate
the
width
and
contours
of
that
salient
jurisdiction. (Para 91)