Delhi District Court
Murti Devi vs . Sudhir Gupta & Ors. on 5 September, 2012
MURTI DEVI vs. SUDHIR GUPTA & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SUIT No.119/2012
Smt. Murti Devi ..... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Sudhir Gupta & Ors. ...... Defendants
Dated: 05.09.2012
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the joint application of plaintiff and defendants U/O 23 R 3 CPC r/w section 151 CPC for disposal of suit on the basis of compromise arrived between them.
2. Plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and consequently relief for injunction alleging therein that she and her husband, namely, Ram Niwas who passed away on 06.11.2011 was issueless and she was in acute depression from 200607 till September 2010. Plaintiff further alleged that out of the family consolation and make her comfortable being issueless, defendants no.1&2 made an adoption deed to make her satisfy and felt that she is not issueless, so that her depression be over. Plaintiff further alleged that she had no knowledge about the adoption deed as she had been desirous to have her natural son and never wanted SUIT NO.119/2012 Page-1/6 MURTI DEVI vs. SUDHIR GUPTA & ORS.
to adopt a child. Plaintiff further alleged that adoption deed dated 19.07.2007 was simply executed just to console her and her husband. She further alleged that no ceremony was performed nor custody of defendant no.3 was handed over to plaintiff and her husband by defendants no.1&2. Plaintiff further alleged that she came to know about adoption deed in October 2010 as she had no prior knowledge due to depression till October 2010. Plaintiff further alleged that parties had agreed in October 2010 to get the said adoption deed cancelled as there was no intention of either party to give or take defendant no.3 in adoption. Plaintiff further alleged that to avoid future complication, she required to go for cancellation of said adoption deed so that parties would have clarity on the subject and there would be no fight. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants are postponing the said cancellation of adoption deed on one pretext or another, so, she filed the present suit for cancellation of said adoption deed and declared it to be null and void.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were not issued, however defendants themselves appeared and defendants no.1&2 filed their affidavit stating therein that they had no intention to give defendant no.3 in adoption to plaintiff. They, further stated that plaintiff's husband has no intention to take defendant no.3 as adopted son. They, further stated that there was no ceremony of adoption ever performed and the custody of child was never handed over to plaintiff.
SUIT NO.119/2012 Page-2/6 MURTI DEVI vs. SUDHIR GUPTA & ORS.
4. I have heard the submission of ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.
5. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that no ceremony of giving and taking of defendant no.3 was ever taken place and further defendants no.1&2 had no intention to give defendant no.3 in adoption to plaintiff and her husband and further they have no intention to adopt defendant no.3 in adoption, so there is violation of clause 6 of Section 11 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred as Act), hence, the adoption is not valid. Accordingly, all the parties agreed for cancellation of adoption deed and therefore, they compromised.
6. It is admitted fact that adoption deed was prepared in regard to adoption of defendant no.3 by defendants no.1&2 and said adoption deed was registered on 19.07.2007. It is also admitted fact that plaintiff filed the present suit after more than one year from death of her husband who has expired on 06.11.2011. So, it is to be seen whether there is any violation of section 11(vi) of Act or not. The relevant clause (vi) of Section 11 of the Act is reproduced as under:
"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 SUIT NO.119/2012 Page-3/6 MURTI DEVI vs. SUDHIR GUPTA & ORS.
adoption."
7. To see whether defendant no.3 was actually given and taken by the parents with intent to transfer or not, we have to see the adoption deed dated 19.07.2007. The relevant clause 1 & 2 of the adoption deed dated 19.07.2007 are reproduced as under:
1. "That the second party have taken said Master Tanuj as their son in adoption from the first party before so many relatives after inauguration a function at their residence.
2. That the first party with their full consent, without any pressure, coercion, undue influences of any kinds from other, voluntarily, personally and actually have handed over said Master Tanuj to the second party as their adoptive son and the second party also, without any pressure, with their full consent, undue influences of any kinds from other voluntarily have gratefully accepted said Master Tanuj as their adoptive son with all due ceremonies before the relatives and others."
It is clear from above said clauses of adoption deed, that a ceremony was performed at the residence of plaintiff wherein defendant no.3 was actually handed over to plaintiff's husband and plaintiff by defendant no.1&2 in presence of various relatives. Thereafter, adoption deed was prepared and same got registered on 19.07.2007. Further, it is also pertinent that the adoption deed bears the photograph of plaintiff as well as her husband besides all the defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendants no.1&2 prepared the adoption deed to console her SUIT NO.119/2012 Page-4/6 MURTI DEVI vs. SUDHIR GUPTA & ORS.
and her husband. Admittedly, plaintiff has not filed any medical documents along with plaint showing that she was in depression prior to adoption of defendant no.3. It is pertinent that plaintiff has filed some medical documents after conclusion of the arguments but same pertains after the adoption of defendant no.3. Further, plaintiff has not explained why the said adoption deed was registered. It is pertinent that parties can lie but a document cannot lie. In view of this discussion, it cannot be said that no ceremony of adoption of defendant no.3 was taken place wherein actual giving and taking of defendant no.3 was not performed.
8. It is pertinent that valid adoption cannot be cancelled by adoptive father or mother as per section 15 of the Act. Section 15 of Act is reproduced as under: "Valid adoption not to be cancelled - No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth."
9. Ld. counsel for plaintiff argued that defendant no.3 appear in class Xth examination in the year 2010 wherein his mother and father mentioned as defendant no.1&2. Further, name of defendant no.3 is also appearing in the ration card of defendants. Admittedly, ration card of defendants was issued in the year 2005 which is prior to the adoption of defendant no.3. Further, plaintiff has not SUIT NO.119/2012 Page-5/6 MURTI DEVI vs. SUDHIR GUPTA & ORS.
mentioned who has filled the application form of class tenth of defendant no.3. Further, whether it was in the knowledge of husband of plaintiff who had adopted defendant no.3, so, under these circumstances, there is no relevancy of these documents.
10. It is on record that summons for settlement of issues were not issued and despite this, all the defendants themselves appear and defendants no. 1&2 filed their affidavit wherein they have not mentioned how they came to know about the pendency of the suit. It is also pertinent that husband of plaintiff expired on 06.11.2011 whereas plaintiff allegedly came out from depression prior to one year from death of her husband i.e. in October 2010 so admittedly during this one year, husband of plaintiff had not filed any petition for cancellation of adoption deed.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of considered opinion that plaintiff filed the present suit in collusion with the defendants to nullify the effect of valid adoption of defendant no.3 by declaring adoption deed dated 19.07.2011 as null and void. Accordingly, not only the joint application of plaintiff and defendants for compromise U/O 23 R 3 CPC but also the suit of plaintiff is dismissed.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RAVINDER SINGH)
05.09.2012 ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE (E)
KKD COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO.119/2012 Page-6/6