1 2025:CGHC:20396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 183 of 2025 Smt. Sharmila Patel W/o Late Chatur Singh Patel Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Gejamuda, Post- Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Prakash Patel S/o Late Chatur Singh Patel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Gejamuda, Post- Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harikishan Patel S/o Paluram Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Gejamuda, Post- Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Manmati W/o Harikishan Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Gejamuda, Post- Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.4/State : Ms. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 05.5.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 11.12.2024 passed by Third District Judge, BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.05.07 17:52:46 +0530 2 Raigarh Distt. Raigarh, in Civil Appeal No.66/2024, upholding the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2024 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.250-A/21, whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of Prakash Patel to be the ‘adopted son’ of the plaintiff and her husband Chatur Singh Patel, has been dismissed. (For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 3. Facts of the case projected by the plaintiff is that, she and her husband Chatur Singh were issueless, therefore, on 06.7.2010, they adopted defendant No.1 Prakash Patel as their son, who was the natural son of defendants 2 & 3. In respect of adoption, late Chatur Singh Patel had also executed Will dated 06.7.2010. It is further pleaded that Chatur Singh died on 23.8.2010 and at that time defendant No.1/Praksh Patel was studying. After attaining majority, defendant No.1 filed application for compassionate appointment, to which documents were sought to substantiate his claim that he is the adopted son of late Chatur Singh Patel, who was working as teacher. Therefore, the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration, as has been stated in the opening paragraph against the defendants. 4. Defendants 1 to 3 did not oppose the plaint averments. 5. Defendant No.4/State did not file written statement before the trial Court. 6. The learned trial Court framed four issues, recorded evidence of the plaintiff Smt. Sharmila Patel and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the civil suit, holding therein that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant No.1 Prakash Patel is the adopted son of plaintiff Sharmila Patel and her husband late Chatur Singh Patel. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiff also dismissed, hence, she filed instant appeal. 3 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that defendants No. 2 & 3 are brother and sister-in-law of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff and her husband Chatur Singh Patel were issue-less, therefore, with consent of defendants No.2 & 3, who are natural parents of defendant No.1 Prakash Patel, they adopted Prakash Patel on 06.7.2010 by following the rituals and in the presence of reputed persons. He further submits that this fact has also been proved by the plaintiff in her deposition as well as “Will” (अन्तिम इच्छापत्र) (Ex-P/5) executed by late Chatur Singh Patel. But the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court, without considering the aforesaid unrebutted evidence in its true perspective, has dismissed the civil suit and the appeal, which is perverse and illegal, hence, it is prayed that this appeal may be admitted for hearing by framing substantial questions of law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As per the pleading and statement of Smt. Sharmila Patel, she and her husband Late Chatur Singh Patel had adopted defendant No.1 Prakash Patel as their son by following rituals in the presence of reputed persons of the village. She has further stated that the child (defendant No.1) was given to them by way of adoption by the natural father and mother of the child i.e. defendants No.2 & 3. Though in this regard ‘Will’ (अन्तिम इच्छापत्र) (Ex-P/5) has also been filed by the plaintiff executed by Late Chatur Singh Patel, in which it has been mentioned that they had adopted defendant No.1 as their son on 06.7.2010. But in support of her submission, the plaintiff has neither examined any other witness/independent witness/persons before whom said adoption was carried out nor examined defendants No. 2 & 3, who are natural guardians of Prakash Patel. 4 10. Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short , ‘Act 1956’) provides that, for valid adoption, actual given and taken of the child in adoption must be proved. But in the instant case, except deposition of the plaintiff, no other witness has been examined on her behalf to prove her aforesaid facts. 11. As per Section 12 of the Act, 1956, on adoption, adoptee gets transplanted in adopting family with the same right as that of natural-born son. From the date of adoption, all the ties of the child in the family of his/her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family. As per the plaintiff, at the time of alleged adoption, age of defendant No.1 was 9 years. But as per his School Certificates of Class X & XII, he passed those examinations in the year 2017 & 2019 respectively, but in those school certificates, his father’s name has been mentioned as Hari Kishan Patel (defendant No.2) and mother’s name has been mentioned as Manmati Patel (defendant No.3), who are his natural father and mother. Even in the permanent residential certificate and caste certificate obtained by defendant No.1 in the year 2014-15, his father’s name has been mentioned as Hari Kishan Patel, who is his natural father. Though these documents have not been exhibited before the trial Court, but it has been filed by the plaintiff herself. Aforesaid entries in the education record of defendant No.1 clearly show that no effect was got done as per Section 12 of the Act 1956, rather defendant No.1 carries name of his natural father and mother and not of the plaintiff and her husband late Chatur Singh Patel. 12. Having considered the aforesaid facts, I do not find any infirmity or illegality on the finding recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that defendant 5 No.1 Prakash Patel was adopted child of her and her husband Chatur Singh Patel. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law to be considered by this Court in this second appeal. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 14. A decree be drawn accordingly. 15. The parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini