IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-82-1998 (O&M) Rajinder Singh and Others . . . . Appellants Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi and Another . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 13.01.2026 Pronounced on: 19.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera8ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Background : The defendants of the suit are before this Court in the present second appeal, assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge, Hisar dated 29.10.1997, whereby the appeal filed by the plain*ff–respondent Smt. Vidya Devi (respondent herein) was ac- cepted; the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court of Sub Judge 1st Class dismissing the suit were set aside, and the suit for declara*on was decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the par*es are being referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The Trial Court record, as available on the DMS, has been perused. 3.1 Admied facts : The factual matrix emerging from the record is that one Harchand had three sons, namely Richhpal, Bhagwana and Naurang, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) besides three daughters, namely Chandrapa*, Lakshmi and Basan*. The plain*ff Smt. Vidya Devi is admi;edly the daughter of Bhagwana, who was married to Smt. Sar* Devi (proforma defendant No.4). Defendant No.2 i.e. Kulwant Rai is the son of Naurang, whereas defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh is the natural son of Kulwant Rai and defendant No.3 Smt. Tarawan*. 3.2 Plainff’s Case : It is the case set up by the defendants that Rajin- der Singh, the grandson of Naurang, and son of Kulwant Rai and Smt. Tarawan*, was given in adop*on to Bhagwana in November, 1977, and that an adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 was executed and registered in that regard. The said adop*on of Rajinder Singh by Bhagwana forms the core of the dispute and has been specifically challenged by the plain*ff Smt. Vidya Devi. 3.3 Bhagwana was a co-sharer of agricultural land in different Khewats situated in three villages. AAer his death, the suit land owned by him was mu- tated in favour of his widow Smt. Sar*, daughter Smt. Vidya Devi and the al- leged adopted son Rajinder Singh. The plain*ff has assailed these muta*ons as being illegal and void. 3.4 Apart from the above, it is further pleaded that proforma defen- dant No.4 Smt. Sar* had suffered a judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985 in Civil Suit No.485 of 1985 in favour of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh, regarding her share in the suit property. Consequent muta*ons in respect of the proper- *es situated in the three villages were also sanc*oned on the basis of the said decree. The plain*ff has challenged the said judgment & decree dated 25.09.1985 as well as the consequent muta*ons. 3.5 The case of the plain*ff is that Rajinder Singh was never legally adopted by Bhagwana. It is pleaded that Bhagwana was an illiterate and simple person and that he was taken to the Tehsil office by Kulwant Rai on the pretext of execu*on of a power of a;orney for management of his agricultural land. It is alleged that under the garb of the said power of a;orney, the adop*on deed was fraudulently got executed. It is further the specific plea of the plain*ff that NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) Smt. Sar*, the wife of Bhagwana, had neither consented to nor par*cipated in the alleged adop*on, rendering the same invalid in law. 3.6 On the basis of these allega*ons, the plain*ff sought a declara*on that the adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 executed by Bhagwana in favour of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh is illegal, null and void as a result of fraud and misrepresenta*on. Consequen*al relief was also sought declaring the inheri- tance muta*ons in favour of defendant No.1 to be illegal and void. The plain*ff further prayed for seGng aside the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985 suf- fered by Smt. Sar* in favour of Rajinder Singh, along with the consequent muta- *ons. 4. Defendant’s Stand : Defendant No.3 Smt. Tarawan*, wife of Kul- want Rai, was proceeded against ex parte. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 contested the suit, raising preliminary objec*ons in their wri;en statement regarding limi- ta*on and locus standi of the plain*ff. On merits, it was pleaded that Rajinder Singh was given in adop*on by his natural parents, namely Kulwant Rai and Smt. Tarawan*, to Bhagwana in the year 1977 with the consent of his wife Smt. Sar*, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was further pleaded that the adop*on deed was subsequently executed and registered on 13.11.1981. It was also pleaded that aAer the death of Bhagwana, Rajinder Singh con*nued to re- side with his adop*ve mother Smt. Sar*, who performed his marriage and ac- knowledged him as her adopted son. Proforma defendant No.4 Smt. Sar* ad- mi;ed having suffered the decree dated 25.09.1985 in favour of her adopted son Rajinder Singh. On these premises, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Necessary issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. The par- *es led their respec*ve evidence, which was duly taken on record. 6. Trial Court’s Findings : Upon apprecia*on of the evidence, the Trial Court held that there was no material to establish that the alleged adop- *on was the result of fraud, misrepresenta*on or undue influence. Relying upon NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) the provisions of the Hindu Adop*ons and Maintenance Act, 1956, par*cularly the presump*on arising from a registered adop*on deed, the Trial Court ob- served that the registered adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 carried a statutory presump*on of validity. The contradic*ons appearing in the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants were held to be minor and in- significant. The judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985 suffered by Smt. Sar* in favour of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh were also held to be valid. On the basis of these findings on the material issues, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.1995. 7.1 First Appellate Court’s Findings : However, the appeal filed by the plain*ff Smt. Vidya Devi was accepted by the learned First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court held that Smt. Sar* Devi, the wife of Bhagwana, was not a consen*ng party to the adop*on. Specific reference was made to the registered adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981, wherein there was no recital showing consent of Smt. Sar* Devi. It was no*ced that she was neither shown as a consen*ng party nor was she a witness to the adop*on deed. Even Bhagwana, the adop*ve father, while execu*ng and registering the adop*on deed, did not state that the adop*on was effected with the consent of his wife and, rather, the deed recited that he alone had taken Rajinder Singh in adop*on. 7.2 The First Appellate Court further no*ced that in the year 1982, i.e. much aAer the date of the alleged adop*on, Bhagwana had received compensa- *on for crop damage on behalf of Rajinder Singh describing himself as his guardian and not as his father. It was also no*ced that in the judgment and de- cree dated 06.01.1981 suffered by the sisters of Bhagwana, Rajinder Singh was shown as son of Bhagwana but through Kulwant Rai, his natural father. Further, in the school records of Rajinder Singh, despite the alleged adop*on having taken place in 1977, he con*nued to be recorded as the son of Kulwant Rai and not as the son of Bhagwana. The First Appellate Court held that any subsequent consent of Smt. Sar* Devi could not cure the defect, as consent of the adop*ve mother is mandatory at the *me of the adop*on. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) 7.3 It was further held that the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985 suffered by Smt. Sar* Devi in favour of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh were null and void, as Rajinder Singh did not have any pre-exis*ng right in her property and the decree was not supported by any valid registra*on as re- quired in law. 7.4 On the basis of these findings, the suit was decreed by declaring the adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 to be null and void. The judgment and de- cree dated 25.09.1985 and the muta*ons based thereon, as well as the inheri- tance muta*ons regarding the estate of Bhagwana, were also declared null and void. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid reversal vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.1997 passed by the First Appellate Court, the defendants have ap- proached this Court by way of the present second appeal. 9.1 Contenons of Appellants – defendants : Learned counsel for the appellants–defendants contends that the registered adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 carries a statutory presump*on of validity in terms of Sec*on 16 of the Hindu Adop*ons and Maintenance Act, 1956. Though the presump*on is re- bu;able, it is argued that the plain*ff failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence sufficient to rebut the same. 9.2 Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent conduct of the par*es clearly supports the adop*on, inasmuch as Rajinder Singh lived with his adop*ve parents, performed the last rites of Bhagwana aAer his death, and his marriage was performed by Smt. Sar* Devi, which are strong indicators of a valid adop*on. Specific reliance is placed upon the tes*mony of DW-12 Smt. Sar* Devi, the adop*ve mother, who supported the case of adop*on having taken place with her consent. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) 9.3 It is further argued that the adop*on allegedly took place in 1977, whereas the suit was filed in the year 1985, and the long silence of the plain*ff amounts to acquiescence. 9.4 Learned counsel submits that minor contradic*ons in the state- ments of rus*c village witnesses, deposing aAer a long lapse of *me, ought not to have been treated as fatal to the case of adop*on. 9.5 On these grounds, it is prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court be set aside and that of the Trial Court be re- stored. 10.1 Contenons of Respondent - Plainff : Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent–plain*ff submits that the adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981, though bearing the signatures of the natural parents, namely Kulwant Rai and Smt. Tarawan*, does not bear the signatures or thumb impres- sion of Smt. Sar* Devi, the adop*ve mother. It is contended that the deed merely bears the thumb impression of Bhagwana and is conspicuously silent re- garding the consent of his wife. A;en*on is drawn to the contents of the adop- *on deed, wherein Bhagwana specifically recites that he had taken the child in adop*on, without sta*ng that the adop*on was with the consent of his wife. 10.2 Learned senior counsel further draws a;en*on to the tes*mony of DW-12 Smt. Sar* Devi, wherein she stated that a wri*ng had been executed soon aAer the alleged adop*on in 1977, prepared by a Brahmin and signed by about ten persons, and that the said wri*ng was in the custody of Kulwant Rai. However, no such document was ever produced on record. It is further pointed out that despite the alleged adop*on in 1977, all subsequent school records con*nued to describe Rajinder Singh as the son of Kulwant Rai and not of Bhag- wana. Page 6 of 11 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) 10.3 Learned senior counsel submits that the consent of the adop*ve mother is mandatory at the *me of the adop*on ceremony and that any subse- quent affirma*on is immaterial in the eyes of law. 10.4 With these submissions, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraise the record carefully. 12. Substanal quesons of law : On hearing learned counsel for the par*es and on perusal of the record, the following substan*al ques*ons of law arise for considera*on: (i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court commi;ed a perversity or legal er- ror in holding that the adop*on of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh was invalid for want of consent of the adop*ve mother, despite the existence of a re- gistered adop*on deed, in view of Sec*on 16 of the Hindu Adop*ons and Main- tenance Act, 1956? (ii) Whether the statutory presump*on a;ached to a registered adop*on deed under Sec*on 16 of the Hindu Adop*ons and Maintenance Act is conclusive, or whether the same stands rebu;ed by evidence demonstra*ng non-compliance with mandatory requirements of Sec*on 7 of the Act? (iii) Whether the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdic*on in declaring the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985 suffered by Smt. Sar* Devi in favour of defendant No.1 to be null and void, on the ground that defendant No.1 had no pre-exis*ng right in the property? Discussion and Answers : 13. Substanal Queson No. (i) & (ii) : Both these ques*ons being in- terlinked are taken up together. Page 7 of 11 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) 14. Sec*on 7 of the Hindu Adop*ons and Maintenance Act, 1956 mandates that where a male Hindu has a living wife, the consent of the wife is a sine qua non for a valid adop*on, unless the wife has completely and finally re- nounced the world or has ceased to be Hindu or has been declared of unsound mind by a competent court. This requirement is mandatory and goes to the very root of the validity of adop*on. 15. Sec*on 16 of the Act raises a rebu;able presump*on in favour of a registered adop*on deed, to the effect that the adop*on has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act. However, the presump*on is neither conclusive nor irrebu;able. Once credible evidence is brought on record show- ing non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements, the presump*on stands displaced. 16. In the present case, it is undisputed that proforma defendant No.4 Smt. Sar*, the wife of Bhagwana, was alive at the *me of the alleged adop*on in November 1977. None of the statutory excep*ons contemplated under the proviso to Sec*on 7 have been pleaded or proved. Consequently, her consent was mandatory and founda*onal to the validity of the adop*on. 17. Though the adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 is a registered docu- ment and is duly signed by the natural parents, namely Kulwant Rai and Smt. Tarawan*, who gave the child in adop*on, as well as by Bhagwana, who pur- portedly took the child in adop*on, and therefore a;racts an ini*al statutory presump*on under Sec*on 16 of the Hindu Adop*ons and Maintenance Act, 1956, though the said presump*on is not conclusive and is expressly rebu;able. 18. A careful scru*ny of the evidence on record establishes that the mandatory requirement of consent of the adop*ve mother, as s*pulated under the proviso to Sec*on 7 of the Act, was not complied with. The adop*on deed does not contain any recital that the adop*on was effected with the consent of Smt. Sar* Devi, the wife of Bhagwana, nor does it bear her signature or thumb impression in any capacity. The scribe Om Prakash (DW7) of the document has NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) categorically deposed that had Smt. Sar* Devi been present at the *me of exe- cu*on, her signature or thumb impression would necessarily have been ob- tained. Smt. Sar* Devi herself admi;ed that she did not enter the Tehsil office at the *me of execu*on of the adop*on deed. 19. Further, the alleged contemporaneous wri*ng said to have been executed at the *me of adop*on in the year 1977, as per DW12 Sar*, though stated to be in the possession of Kulwant Rai, was never produced on record, warran*ng an adverse inference. Addi*onally, the consistent subsequent con- duct reflected in school and official records, wherein Rajinder Singh con*nued to be described as the son of his natural father Kulwant Rai even years aAer the alleged adop*on, coupled with Bhagwana himself describing Rajinder Singh as his ward and not as his son, cumula*vely rebuts the statutory presump*on. 20. The subsequent oral affirma*on of consent by Smt. Sar* Devi can- not cure the founda*onal defect, as consent under Sec*on 7 of the Act must ex- ist at the *me of adop*on. Consequently, the presump*on under Sec*on 16 stands fully displaced, and the alleged adop*on of Rajinder Singh by Bhagwana cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of law. 21. The law laid down in Hari Ram v. Surja, 1993(3) LJR 647, squarely applies, wherein this Court held that consent of the concerned parent is manda- tory and absence thereof renders the adop*on invalid notwithstanding a regis- tered deed. 22. The reliance placed by the appellants on Laxmibai (dead) thr lrs and anr. v. Bhagwantbuva and ors., (2013) 4 SCC 97, is misplaced. In that case, the adop*ve mother had affixed her thumb impression on the adop*on deed, and the natural parents had signed as a;es*ng witnesses and not as executors. The challenge pertained only to the capacity in which the natural parents signed the document. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held such an objec*on to be techni- cal. In the present case, the adop*ve mother has not signed the deed at all, making the factual founda*on en*rely dis*nct. Page 9 of 11 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) 23. The First Appellate Court, therefore, rightly held that the presump- *on under Sec*on 16 stood successfully rebu;ed by cogent and unimpeachable evidence showing non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Sec*on 7 of the Act. Such finding is neither perverse nor contrary to law. Accordingly, Substan*al Ques*on No. (i) & (ii) are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent–plain*ff. 24. Substanal Queson No. (iii) : Once the adop*on of Rajinder Singh is held to be invalid, he does not acquire the status of a son or heir of Bhagwana or Smt. Sar*. Consequently, he had no pre-exis*ng right in the prop- erty of Smt. Sar*. 25. A consent or compromise decree crea*ng rights in immovable property in favour of a person having no antecedent *tle operates as a con- veyance and compulsorily requires registra*on. In the absence of such registra- *on, no right, *tle or interest can pass. 26. The ra*o laid down in Natha Singh @ Nathu Singh v. Jarnail Singh, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 244, for*fies this conclusion, holding that the status of an adopted child cannot be conferred merely by subsequent documents when the adop*on itself is not validly proved. 27. The First Appellate Court has correctly applied this se;led princi- ple in holding that the decree dated 25.09.1985 and the consequent muta*ons were null, illegal and void. Accordingly, Substan*al Ques*on No. (iii) is also an- swered against the appellants. 28. All the substan*al ques*ons of law framed by this Court stand an- swered against the appellants. The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on a correct apprecia*on of statutory provisions, binding prece- dents, and the evidence on record. No perversity, misapplica*on of law, or juris- dic*onal error is made out warran*ng interference in second appeal. Page 10 of 11 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-82-1998 (O&M) 29. Scope of Interference under Secon 100 CPC : It is trite that in sec- ond appeal, interference is permissible only when findings are shown to be per- verse, based on misreading of evidence, or in disregard of mandatory statutory provisions. The First Appellate Court, being the final court on facts, has me*cu- lously reappraised the evidence and recorded findings which are not only plausi- ble but are firmly rooted in statutory mandate and se;led legal principles. The appellants, in essence, seek reapprecia*on of evidence and subs*tu*on of fac- tual conclusions, which is impermissible in second appeal. 30. Conclusion : In view of the answers returned to the substan*al ques*ons of law and for the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in the present second appeal. The judgment and decree dated 29.10.1997 passed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge, Hisar are hereby affirmed. The adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981, the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985, and the muta*ons based thereon have been rightly declared null and void. 31. Accordingly, the present second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 19.01.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes Uploaded on.: 19.01.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.19 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document