Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Bhagwan Singh Son Of Shri Jeevan Lal, ... on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 284/2020
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1806/2016
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Education (Secondary), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer, Secondary-II, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Bhagwan Singh Son Of Shri Jeevan Lal, Adopted Son Of Late
Shri Nek Ram, Resident Of Pichuna, Tehsil Roopbas, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, Additional Advocate General For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi, Advocate HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Judgment / Order 02/02/2021 Appellant-State has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the respondent, was allowed.
Learned state counsel has submitted that the adoption deed produced by the respondent was liable to be rejected as the appellant was more than fifteen years of age on the date of registration of the adoption deed. Hence, as per Section 10 of the (Downloaded on 05/02/2021 at 10:28:49 PM) (2 of 3) [SAW-284/2020] Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), respondent could not have been taken in adoption by Nekram.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that a perusal of the adoption deed itself reveals that the respondent had been taken in adoption by Nekram fifteen years prior to the date of the registration of adoption deed. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
Nekram (since deceased) was in service with Education Department as a Class-IV employee. Nekram died on 24.12.2013, while he was in service. Respondent moved an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of Nekram. It was the case of the respondent that he was adopted son of Nekram. In this regard, respondent had placed reliance on adoption deed dated 5.8.2013.
It was the case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge that registration of adoption deed had been executed on 5.8.2013, wherein, it was stated that the respondent had been taken in adoption by Nekram fifteen years prior to the registration of adoption deed. The said deed was duly signed by the adoptive father as well as the natural parents of the respondent. Nekram was unmarried and had adopted respondent, who was born to Jeevan Lal and Usha Devi.
We have carefully gone through the adoption deed dated 5.8.2013. A perusal of the same reveals that it is signed by the adoptive father Nekram and Jeevan Lal natural father of the respondent and has been thumb marked by Usha Devi natural mother of the respondent. It has been duly mentioned in the (Downloaded on 05/02/2021 at 10:28:49 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-284/2020] adoption deed that respondent had been taken in adoption by Nekram about fifteen years prior to the execution of the registration of adoption deed. It has also been stated that Nekram was unmarried and there were no chances of his getting married and due to this reason, he had adopted respondent as his son.
Section 16 of the Act reads as under:-
"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."
Learned Single Judge rightly based reliance on Section 16 of the Act that the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it was disproved. However, the registered adoption deed has not been held to be invalid by any Competent Court. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge rightly held that the adoption deed was liable to be taken in consideration while considering the case of the respondent for his appointment on compassionate grounds on account of death of his adoptive father.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J (SABINA),J
Mohita /43
(Downloaded on 05/02/2021 at 10:28:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)