Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

That being the situation, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC does not find favour from this Court and the same is hereby rejected.

Now, the impugned judgment requires judicial scrutiny on merits.

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Mahesh Thanvi has strenuously urged that adoption deed is de hors the mandatory provisions of Section 6 & 7 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'). Mr.Thanvi submits that a bare perusal of the adoption deed makes it crystal clear that there is no proper ceremony of giving the first respondent in adoption by his biological parents. Elaborating his submission, Mr.Thanvi has urged that at the time of execution of adoption deed, biological mother of Prithvi Singh was alive but there is no recital in the adoption deed showing her consent to give first respondent in adoption to late Shivram Tak and Smt.Shanti Devi. Learned counsel would contend that adoption is also contrary to Clause (iii) of Section 10 of the Act of 1956 inasmuch as at the time of adoption, first respondent was not only major but he was married also. As per learned counsel, marital status of the first respondent has rendered the adoption vulnerable and the same ought to have been declared as null and void by the learned court below. Learned counsel Mr.Thanvi further submits that at the time of execution of adoption deed, late Shivram Tak was seriously ill suffering from paralysis and, therefore, he was physically and mentally unfit to execute the instrument of adoption. Learned counsel has also urged that even Smt.Shanti Devi in her written statement has completely disowned and repudiated the execution of adoption deed which is sufficient to nullify the adoption and by not doing so, the learned court below has committed serious error of law and fact. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that recitals contained in the adoption deed nowhere indicate that it is an instrument whereby adoptive parents have simply made acknowledgement of the earlier adoption of the first respondent. He, therefore, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, presumption vis-a-vis a registered document envisaged under Section 16 of the Act of 1956 is clearly rebuttable and the said aspect has not been addressed by the learned court below while deciding issue No.3. Referring to the averments made in the plaint, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that first respondent was brother-in-law looser (wife's brother) of late Shivram Tak and, therefore, on the face of it, such adoption is legally impermissible. Learned counsel has also referred to Section 9 of the Act of 1956 by submitting that Explanation to said Section makes it amply clear that mother and father does not include adoptive mother and father and, therefore, in want of proper giving in adoption and taking in adoption, the same is illegal and void ab-initio to be declared as such. Taking a dig at the testimony of the attesting witness Dr.B.R.Vyas, DW-3, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that his statements are insufficient to prove proper execution of adoption deed and so also to presume mental stability of late Shivram Tak to execute an adoption deed when he was ill.