Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

'Whether 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.' And from the evidence led by the respondent, it is amply proved on record that there was no valid adoption rather this was all a forged and fabricated document procured by Manjit Singh, natural father of the appellant being the nephew of Gurbachan Singh since deceased to grab his property and so neither the adoption is proved nor any presumption can be drawn in favour of his adoption deed Ex. P5 being a forged and fabricated document. If it is so then certainly the cancellation of deed of adoption vide cancellation deed Ex. D.W. 7/A Gurbachan Singh since deceased got cancelled the adoption deed Ex. P5 is a valid and legal one and from the perusal of this cancellation deed, it is very interesting to note that the testator has categorically recorded that Manjit Singh, natural father of the appellant and the real nephew of testator Gurbachan Singh deceased obtained his signatures on adoption deed Ex. P5 by misrepresentation and taking advantage of the old age of the testator to which he never consented and this statement of the deceased testator falsifies the tall claim of the appellant that he is the adopted son of deceased Gurbachan Singh. The cancellation deed Ex. D.W. 7/A has been duly proved on record from the testimony of D.W. 7 Mangat Rai, deed writer, who is the scribe of this cancellation deed and D.W. 8 Lekh Ram, one of the attesting witnesses of this cancellation deed. Even otherwise, it is an admitted fact that Gurbachan Singh since deceased remained sick at the fag end of his career and was provided medical aid from Ludhiana by his daughters and this fact has been fortified from the testimony of D.W. 9 Naranjan Singh, Record Keeper of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Ludhiana and D.W. 10 Jokesh Kumar, Senior Cashier, Daya Nand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana. The authorities relied upon by the appellant Pathivada Ramasivami and Ors. v. Komda Surya Parkash Rai and Anr.., 1993 (2) HLR 219, and AIR 1902 (P and H) 282 (b) and 1975 RLR 136,1983 RLR 205,1972 PLR 50 and AIR 1968 Rajasthan page 51 are relevant where there is valid adoption but when it is amply proved on record that the appellant was not validly adopted and that the paper transaction was also set at rest vide cancellation deed Ex. D.W. 7/A, then these authorities do not, in any way, further the case of the appellant and the authorities cited by the respondents, Hari Ram v. Surja and Anr., 1993 (Suppl.) CCC 429; Smt. Urmila Devi and Anr. v. Hemanta Kumar Mohanta @ Hemanta Mohanta and Ors., AIR 1993 Orissa 213; Harjit Singh v. Union of India and Anr., 1991 (1) PLJ 403; Madhusudan das v. Namyanibai and Ors., 1983 HLR 485, 1993 (2) HLR 367, and AIR 1990 NOC 13, applies with full force to the facts of the present case. The other argument put forward by the appellant that the time of the execution of the adoption Ex. P5 the deceased Gurbachan Singh also executed agreement, copy of entry of the Register of the deed writer is Ex. P6 vide which he has proclaimed that as he has adopted the son, so his daughters or any other person will not have any right in his property automatically goes, once the adoption has been proved to be a paper transaction being result of fraud and misrepresentation practised by Manjit Singh natural father of the appellant, The learned Counsel for the appellant has also mentioned in the arguments that in the pleadings the appellant has mentioned that Amar Kaur, wife of Gurbachan Singh died in the year 1973 was not specifically denied in the written statement be admitted to be true is without any merit because Beant Kaur who is the natural mother of the appellant who appeared as P.W. 9 has categorically stated in the examination-in-chief that the wife of Gurbachan Singh since deceased died in the year 1968, in fact falsifies the pleadings of the appellant itself.