Allahabad High Court: In a petition challenging an appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (‘UPCH Act’) , wherein it was held that the adoption deed adduced by the petitioner has not been executed in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘HAMA 1956’), a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Kumar Rai, J. while setting aside the impugned orders and affirming the ruling of the consolidation officer, reiterated that UP amendment to Section 16 of HAMA does not require registration of adoption deeds executed prior to 1-1-1977.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner seeks relief through a writ petition challenging the decisions of the Settlement Officer and the revision authority, which directed the recording of respondent 3 and 4 (the biological sisters of the deceased) in place of the deceased, despite the petitioner’s claim based on an adoption deed. The petitioner, who claims to have been adopted by the deceased on 25-10-1974 through a valid adoption deed, contends that this deed should be given precedence over the respondents’ claim as legal heirs under Section 12 of the UPCH Act. The Consolidation Officer initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, recognizing the validity of the adoption deed and recording the petitioner in place of the deceased. However, the Settlement Officer reversed this decision, allowing the appeal of respondent 3 and 4, while the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner argues that the adoption deed, executed prior to the death of the deceased, establishes a legally binding relationship, making the petitioner the rightful heir, and that the decisions of the Settlement Officer and the revision authority are legally erroneous and should be set aside.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said the petitioner’s central argument rests on the assertion that the adoption deed, executed prior to the deceased’s death, is legally binding and gives him the right to inherit the estate, superseding the claims of the biological sisters under Section 12 of the UPCH Act.
The Court perused Sections 6 and 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and noted that the original copy of the adoption deed was filed before the Consolidation Officer, who after considering the oral and documentary evidence recorded finding of fact that adoption deed has been rightly executed and there is no necessity for the registration of the adoption deed. The Court thus concluded that the Appellate Court’s finding that the adoption deed has not been executed in accordance with the provisions of HAMA, 1956, cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the adoption has been found to be proved before the Consolidation Officer.
Noting the submission of the respondents that for a valid adoption, consent of natural mother was necessary, the Court said that the deceased’s adoption deed clearly stated that his wife had left his house 18-20 years prior to the execution of the deed, and there was no evidence to suggest that she was residing with him at the time of, or after, the adoption.
Additionally, the Court addressed the U.P. Amendment to Section 16 of HAMA, which mandates the registration of adoption deeds. However, the Court clarified that this provision, which became operative only on 01-01-1977, does not apply to adoptions executed prior to that date, such as the adoption deed dated 25-10-1974 in this case. The Court held that the non-registration of the adoption deed does not invalidate it or affect its legal standing, as it was executed before the amended law came into effect.
The Court essentially underlined that the appellate decision was flawed in overlooking the clear evidentiary record supporting the validity of the adoption. The Court emphasized that the adoption deed, executed in 1974, was legally sound, and there was no reason to invalidate it based on technicalities or lack of registration, especially considering the specific legal context at the time.
The Court further mentioned that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not decided the revision in proper manner and maintained the appellate order for recording the name of contesting respondent in place of the deceased.
The Court also referred to the case Munder v. Director of Consolidation, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4710, wherein it was held that registration was not required prior to 1-1-1977 with respect to execution of adoption deed.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned appellate order and the revisional order and affirmed the order of the Consolidation officer.
[Jagdish v. Sahayak Sanchalak, 2024 SCC OnLine All 7569, decided on 05-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: C.B. Singhal
For the Respondents: Addl. C.S.C. Sharad Chandra Singh, Anil Kumar Mishra
