Registered Adoption Deed Presumed To Be Genuine Unless Disproved In Independent Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that a registered adoption deed must be presumed to be in compliance of law unless specifically disproved in independent proceedings.
Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that when a registered adoption deed is produced in a court of law where the sign of the party giving the child and the party adopting the child are present, such deed shall be presumed to be in compliance of law unless it is otherwise proved.
Justice Irshad Ali held
“In view of Section 16, wherever any document registered under any law is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made, and the same is signed by the persons mentioned therein, the court shall presume that the said adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act, until and unless such presumption is disproved. In view of Section 16, it is open for a party to attempt to disprove the deed of adoption by initiating independent proceedings.”
One Gayadeen had three sons namely Samay Deen, Narain, Ram Asrey. Ram Asrey being issueless adopted the petitioner from his natural parents. Adoption deed was registered on 08.02.1982. Upon death of Ram Asrey, petitioner, through his natural father, filed for mutation of revenue records. This was objected by the respondents.
Parties and witnesses were examined and it was held that the will could not be disproved, and order of mutation was passed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Kaiserganj allowed the appeals by respondents and set aside the mutation order. Revisions filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad were dismissed, allegedly without application of mind on Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the validity of the adoption deed.
Petitioner approached the High Court on grounds that the adoption deed was never challenged in separate proceedings and that the adoption deed was never disproved.
The Court observed that since the Commissioner completely ignored the presumption attached to registered adoption deeds under Section 16 of the Act, the orders were liable to be set aside. It held that no reason was recorded by the Commissioner to hold that the adoption deed was suspicious.
“If there was any grievance against the adoption deed duly registered, the respondents would have filed statutory proceeding, challenging the adoption deed registered and due to non challenging the adoption deed, the finding recorded by the appellate court and revisional court, showing assumption of doubt, is perverse in nature and the orders passed are not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
The Court observed that the adoption deed was duly proved by the witnesses and none of them challenged its legality in cross-examination. Since no reasons were recorded for declaring the same as suspicious and the presumption in law was in favour of the adoption deed, the Court set aside the order of the Commissioner as well as that of the appellate Court and allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Ram Kumar v. Narain And Others [WRIT - C No. - 1001378 of 2000]