2025:JHHC:25872 1 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 246 of 2002 -------- Sanicharia Devi, wife of Jaikant Thakur and Daughter of Late Sukar Thakur, resident of Village Govindpur, P.S. Saraiyahat, Dist. Dumka. ... ... Appellant/Plaintiff Versus 1. Belu Thakur adopted son of Late Saligram Thakur @ Osta 2. KoshalyaKumari adopted daughter of Late Saligram Thakur @ Osta. 3. Janardan Prasad Yadav, son of Keshwar Prasad Yadav 4. Dhyani Devi, wife of Janardan Prasad Yadav All resident of village Govindpur, P.S. Saraiyahat, Dist. Dumka … ….Respondents/Defendants 5. Pritam Thakur, son of Late Harihar Thakur Resident of village Saraiyahat, P.S. Saraiyahat, Dist. Dumka … ….Respondent/Proforma Defendant 6. Jagdish Thakur, son of Late Sukar Thakur resident of Village Govindpur, P.S. Saraiyahat, Dist. Dumka. …… Respondent/Plaintiff -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. AmanKedia, Advocate Mr. AkhouriPrakharSinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMARSRIVASTAVA -------- J U D G M E N T C.A.V. on 30.06.2025 Pronounced on 28/08/2025 The instant Second Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2002 (decree signed on 05.10.2002) passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Dumka in Title Appeal No. 1 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 04.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Dumka in Title Suit No. 20 of 1997 has been reversed and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for declaration that adoption deeds No. 90/1973 dated 07.02.1973 and 278/1978 dated 05/10/1978 purportedly executed by Rani Ostain in favour of defendant No. 1 and 2, respectively 2025:JHHC:25872 2 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 to be void, inoperative and not binding upon plaintiff. It is alleged that parties are Hindus and governed by Hindu Law of Succession. It is alleged that plaintiff Okhiya Ostain is sole daughter of Pairu Osta who died in the year 1957 leaving behind his son Saligram Osta and daughter Okhiya Ostain, the plaintiff. After death of Pairu Osta, the plaintiff along with her brother Saligram Osta jointly succeeded and came into possession of the landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No. 28 Mauza Karia and Jamabandi No. 21 Mauza Eksingha and Jamabandi No. 20 Mauza Govindpur. It is further alleged that Saligram Osta died in the year 1964 leaving behind his sole daughter Binda Devi and sole son Neelkanth and his wife Rani Ostain. Neelkanth Osta died in the month of April, 1973 and Binda Devi was married with one Pritam Thakur (proforma defendant No. 5) who also died in the year 1980. Thereafter, Rani Ostain solemnized her second marriage with one Muso Osta of Saraiyahat and also executed a paper dated 05.06.1973 in presence of Panchayat Authorities and villagers in respect of said marriage. It is further alleged that Binda Devi also died issueless and her husband Pritam Thakur (proforma defendant No. 5) performed second marriage. Thereafter, being sole surviving heir of Pairu Osta (the recorded tenant) the plaintiff in the capacity of his daughter became exclusive owner and came into possession of the aforesaid landed properties. It is further alleged that since some time past the defendants are making faul sort of false claims. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 and 2 are claiming to be adoptive son and daughter respectively of Rani Ostain as per impugned adoption deeds which are false and fabricated and such adoption never took place rather in the garb of adoptions, the defendants are adamant to get their names recorded in the present settlement which is in operation. It is further alleged that the plaintiff for the first time came to know about the aforesaid adoption deeds in first week of April, 1996 and with great difficulty obtained certified copies of the adoption deeds and instituted this suit because the false claims of the defendants before the settlement authorities has cast doubt in the right, title and 2025:JHHC:25872 3 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 possession of the plaintiff. 3. On the other hand, the contesting defendants (first party) in their written statement stated that the name and parentage of defendant No. 1 and 2 who are adopted son and daughter of Rani Ostain has been wrongly mentioned as their original name rather after adoption their name has been changed as Belu Thakur and Kaushalaya Kumari respectively and their natural father’s name has also been mentioned instead of adoptive father and mother Rani Ostain and Saligram Thakur. It is further stated that plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit which is hopelessly barred by law of limitation also. It is admitted that Pairu Osta had one son and one daughter namely Saligram and Okhiya respectively but it is wrong to say that Pairu died in the year 1957 rather he died in the year 1948. It is denied that after death of Pairu Osta, Okhiya Ostain (plaintiff) succeeded to the properties left by her father jointly with her brother Saligram Osta rather sole son of Pairu Osta Saligram succeeded and inherited the entire property of Pairu Osta. Plaintiff never came into joint possession of the property. It is further alleged that Saligram Osta died in the year 1968 as against 1964 as pleaded by the plaintiff leaving behind his wife Rani Ostain, daughter Binda Devi and son Neelkanth pre-deceased Saligram Osta who was unmarried. It is further stated that Binda Devi was married but died issueless. It is further stated that Rani Ostain never remarried with Muso Osta of Saraiyahat and never executed any alleged paper dated 05.06.1973 if any such document are produced the same would be forged, fabricated and manufactured and collusive document with connivance of the Panchayat authority. It is further stated that the plaintiff filed a revenue misc. case No. 34/73-74 before the S.D.O., Dumka which was dismissed by order dated 08.04.1974 and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff being revenue misc. appeal No. 277/75-76 was also dismissed. It is further stated that there was another case being Criminal Misc. Case No. 250/1973 in between Rani Ostain and others Vs. Sambhu Ostain and Ors. Including Okhiya Ostain (plaintiff) before 2025:JHHC:25872 4 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 the Court of S.D.M., Dumka wherein the plaintiff did not whisper about the alleged paper dated 05.06.1973. It is further pleaded that Binda Devi also pre-deceased her father Saligram Osta therefore she could not be the owner of the properties of the Saligram Osta. It is further pleaded that plaintiff never inherited any property of Pairu Osta as such no question arise to become owner of the property left by Pairu Osta or her brother Saligram Osta since Rani Ostain remained sole heir of her husband Saligram Osta and never remarried hence inherited all the properties left by her husband and came into possession exclusively. It is further stated that Binda Devi died in the year 1967 and not in the year 1980 as falsely stated by the plaintiff. Rani Ostain after death of her husband, son and daughter became issueless hence she adopted the first defendant No. 1 by his natural parents and the ceremony of adoption was performed on 06.02.1973 at her residence and defendant No. 1 was given in adoption by his natural father Ram Rao with the consent of his wife Basumati Devi. The ceremony of “giving and taking” was performed in presence of villagers at village Govindpur and relatives of both the parties. The defendant was at that time aged about 6 years only since then the defendant No. 1 was living in the house of Rani Ostain and also constructed a new house over the lands of his adoptive mother. Accordingly, a registered deed of adoption dated 06.02.1973 was also registered as deed No. 90/1973 at Dumka, Sub-Registry Office. It is further stated that Rani Ostain having no daughter has also taken the defendant No. 2 in adoption on 16.09.1978 at her residence at village Govindpur in presence of villagers, relatives and other dignitaries performing the ceremony of giving and taking from her natural father and mother and given in the lap of Rani Ostain at the age of two years. Accordingly, adoption deed was executed and registered on 05.10.1978 vide Deed No. 278/1978 at Dumka, Sub-Registry Office and the adopted child was renamed as Kaushalaya Kumari. The plaintiff was aware about the aforesaid adoption deeds from very beginning through revenue misc. cases and the criminal misc. cases at the time of survey settlement 2025:JHHC:25872 5 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 operations as such plaintiff has no cause of action which is barred by limitation and fit to be dismissed. 4. In course of trial,total five witnesses were examined by the plaintiff:- P.W. 1-Okhia Ostain (sole plaintiff died after evidence) P.W. 2- MahendraKapri P.W. 3- Lodho Rout P.W. 4- Rambriksha Osta P.W. 5-Shital Thakur 5. Apart from above oral evidence of witnesses, Exhibit-1 regarding remarriage of Rani Ostain marked with note of objection. 6. On behalf of the defendants, nine witnesses were examined: D.W.1- Belu Thakur (Defendant No. 1) D.W.2- Chandi Mahto D.W.3- Bechan Mahto D.W.4- Gangadhar Rout D.W.5- Jagdish Rout D.W.6- Janardan Prasad Yadav D.W.7- Bharath Lodwain D.W.8- Barun Chandra Mandal D.W.9- Arjun Prasad Yadav 7. Apart from the oral testimony of defendants, following documents have been exhibited: Exhibit -A-1 (Deed of Adoption No. 90/73) Exhibit -A (Signature of Gangadhar Rout on Ext.A/1) Exhibit -A/2 (Adoption Deed No. 278/78) Exhibit -B & B/1 are the signatures of Janardan Prasad Yadav and Dhyani Devi respectively) Exhibit- C (C/C of cancellation deed no. 225 of the year 1973. This document was filed by the plaintiff. Mark Exhibit on behalf of the defendants) 2025:JHHC:25872 6 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 Exhibit- D (C/C of cancellation of deed No. 390 of 1973) Exhibit- E (C.C. of Attestation parcha of J.B. No. 85/28 of Mouza Kedia) Exhibit- E/1 (C/C of Parcha of J.B. No. 3/20 of Mouza- Gobindpur) Exhibit- E/2 (C/C of Attestation Parcha of J.B. No. 23/21 of Mouza Eksingha) Exhibit- F (C/C of Order dated 8.4.74 passed in Revenue Misc. No. 34/73-74 of the Court of the S.D.O. Dumka) Exhibit -G (C/C of order dated 18.9.73 of the Court of S.D.O, Dumka passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 250/73) Exhibit-H (C/C of Voter List of Sl. No. 73 of Mouza Gobindpur of the year 1980 showing Rani Ostain as W/o Shaligram Osta) 8. Learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- I. Is the suit maintainable? II. Has the plaintiff got locus standi to institute the suit? III. Has the plaintiff got cause of action for the suit? IV. Whether the suit is time barred? V. Are the defendant No. 1 and 2 adopted son and daughter, respectively of Rani Ostain and the registered deeds legal, valid and operative? VI. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as claimed? 9. Learned trial Court took the Issue No. V as vital issue of this Case to be decided at first. The prime question about burden of proof of the alleged two adoption deeds in this case which are having tendency of displacing the natural course of succession to the ancestral property of the plaintiff placed reliance upon the reported judgment in the case of “Addagada Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. Addagada Chenchamma & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 136” wherein it has been held that “a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of 2025:JHHC:25872 7 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 adoption and its validity. The evidence in proof of the adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. Nonetheless the fact of the adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact”. 10. Further placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kashi Nath Rai vs. Mahadeo Rai & Ors, AIR 1977 PATNA 199 that giving and taking ceremony would be essential to the validity of an adoption and for a valid adoption the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite and also taking into the presumption attached to registered adoption by virtue of provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 11. In the touchstone of above principles of law, the learned Trial Court proceeded to discuss the evidence of defendants who had placed reliance upon the adoption deeds as basis for exclusion of the plaintiff from the ancestral property. The learned Trial Court held that on the date of the alleged adoption, defendant No. 1 Belu Thakur was only five to six years old and his mother and father who are signatory of the said adoption deed (exhibit A/1) namely Ram Raut and Dasmati Devi has not been examined in this case. The adoptive mother Rani Ostain has already died. The defendant No. 1 also admits that he lived with adoptive mother only for five to six years thereafter she died. The defendant No. 1 is by birth belonged to Yadav Community and has also married with a Yadav girl. D.W.-2 and 3 have also not been able to prove the giving and taking ceremony and also contrary to the facts pleaded by the parties. D.W.-4 Gangadhar Raoisan practicing advocate at Dumka Bar who drafted the deed of adoption (Exhibit A/1) and one Uma Kant Rao identified the parties but not examined by the defendant. This witness has also failed to prove the factum of actual ceremony of giving and taking between the parties. D.W.-5 is a hearsay witness regarding adoption of Kaushalya Kumari. D.W.-6 is the father of the adopted girl child Kusum @ Kaushalya Kumari. He also belongs to Yadav Community. D.W.-7 Bharat Ladwain, maternal grandfather of Kusum Kumari @ Kaushalya 2025:JHHC:25872 8 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 Kumari. He has also failed to prove the actual ceremony of adoption of Kusum Kumari @ Kaushalya Kumari. D.W.-9 Arjun Prasad Yadav is an advocate and scriber who drafted the deed of adoption but no ceremony of giving and taking was ever taken in his presence. 12. The learned Trial Court also compared the evidence of plaintiff witnesses particularly the plaintiff Okhiya Ostain who was not invited at the time of alleged adoption and had any knowledge about the same. The learned trial Court further observed that there is no denying fact that the registered deed of adoption carry statutory presumption that it has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless the same is refuted but in the present case the two alleged adoption deeds (exhibit A/1 and A/2) seems to be forged and fabricated document. Apart from that there is a document on record that Most. Rani Ostain had once revoked and cancelled the deed of adoption of defendant No. 1vide Exhibit C which shows that once Rani Ostain had cancelled the alleged adoption deed No. 90 dated 6/2/1973. Again, vide Exhibit-D it would appear that Rani Ostain cancelled the earlier cancellation deed acknowledging adoption of defendant No. 1. Thus, act suggests that how there was deliberate attempt of defendants in creating forged documents. The learned Trial Court further recorded findings that there is practically no evidence on record to suggest that Rani Ostain had in fact executed any such deed of adoption on two different occasions. Defendant No. 1 who is the alleged adopted son claims to have put his Left Thumb Impression over the adoption deed which is absolutely wrong. The attesting witness (Exhibit A/1) are not the relatives of Rani Ostain rather they are creatures of defendant. Further there is no evidence to show that the contents of deed was read over and explained to Rani Ostain as well as cancellation of the deed by Rani Ostain. Although the plaintiff has not been able to prove that Rani Ostain just after the adoption married with another person. But the suspicion circumstances prevailing in execution of the deeds of adoption similarly Exhibit-C and D also by necessary implication raises the strong suspicion of the nature of adoption deed and 2025:JHHC:25872 9 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 recent survey parcha (Exhibit-E Series) have also not raised its finality. It appears also that defendants even persuaded the survey authority to record the name Kaushalya being the adopted daughter of SaligramOsta, it does not bear the name of Dhodo who also claimed adopted son. Similarly, Exhibit-F and G are also not supported with connecting documents which are the orders of criminal proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Trial Court arrived at definite findings that neither Dhodo Rout nor Kusum Kumari, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant Nol. 2 are adopted son and daughter of Rani Ostain. As such both the adoption deeds are forged and fabricated documents conferring no status of either son or daughter (Defendant No. 1 and 2, respectively). Accordingly, decided the Issue No. V in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. 13. Issue No. II and III were taken together for adjudication. In this connection, it was held that the recorded raiyat Pairu Osta died behind him Saligram Osta and Okhiya Ostain (plaintiff). Saligram died leaving behind his wife Rani Ostain who later remarried therefore the property belonged to Pairu Osta was inherited by Okhiya Osta as an absolute owner. She was thus entitled to legal character therefore there is cause of action for this suit because her title is being obstructed by the forged and fabricated adoption deeds. Accordingly, the above issues were also decided in favour of plaintiff. 14. As regards issue no. IV, the learned Trial Court considered the plea taken by the defendants that the ExhibitC (cancellation deed) was filed by the plaintiff. Exhibit E and E/3 Survey Parcha, Exhibit- F and G which are between the period of 1973 – 1989 clearly goes to say the knowledge of adoption to the plaintiff but she did not institute the suit for cancellation of adoption deed and her plea that she came to know about said adoption in the month of April is absolutely wrong therefore suit is barred by limitation under Article 56 and 57 of the Limitation Act, in this regard, the learned trial Court specifically observed that when plaintiff applied for adoption deeds in the year 1996, she also obtained 2025:JHHC:25872 10 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 the copy of the Exhibit C (cancellation deed). The other documents relied upon by defendants Exhibit E series, F and G are not sufficient to impute any knowledge of adoption to the plaintiff. No cross examination has been made towards those documents with the plaintiff while she was examined before the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is time barred. On the basis of decision on four issues, the issue No. I and VI were also decided in favour of plaintiff and the suit was decreed. 15. Before the First Appellate Court vide Title Appeal No. 01 of 2000 preferred by the Defendants, the learned Appellate Court reconstructed following issues for adjudication of the Appeal:- I Is the suit as framed maintainable ? II Has the plaintiff valid cause for action for the suit? III Are the appellants No. 1 and 2 adopted son and daughter respectively of Rani Ostain and the registered deeds of adoption legal, valid and operative? IV Is the suit barred by law of limitation? 16. The learned First Appellate Court has taken the Issue No III to be decided at first without recording any deferring views as regards surrounding suspicious circumstances around the execution of two registered deeds of adoption by influencing the adoptive mother Rani Ostain. The First Appellate Court on the basis of oral evidence of the plaintiff and the documentary evidence (Exhibit 1) regarding remarriage of Rani Ostain arrived at finding that Rani Ostain was never remarried and the two deeds of adoption has been executed after death of her own son and daughter namely Neelkanth and Binda Devi. It was also observed that as per adoption of son (Exhibit A/1) also it is mentioned that adoptive mother Rani Ostain was issueless at the time and for religious purpose she has taken a son from Ram Rout his son namely Dhodho Raut aged about 6 years in adoption with consent of his wife. The adoption ceremony was also held on 06.02.1973 and the son was renamed as Belu Thakur. It was also held by learned First Appellate Court by perusal of Exhibit B/3 adoption of girl child Kusum Kumari 2025:JHHC:25872 11 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 that one Janardan Prasad Yadav after performing adoption ceremony on 16.09.1978 has given in daughter in the lap of Rani Ostain. The learned Appellate Court has further taken into notice that Exhibit C executed by Most. Rani Ostain vide deed No. 225 dated 16.05.1973 and canceled the adoption deed in respect of adopted child Belu Thakur but again by executing Exhibit D vide deed No. 390 dated 28.07.1973 the original adoption deed (Exhibit A/1) in respect of son Belu Thakur has been restored by cancelling the Exhibit C. Therefore adoption was not performed in haste keeping the family members in dark. The learned Appellate Court also took into notice that from Exhibit E/1 it is apparent that appellant No. 1 and 2 have also been recorded in the recent survey settlement for the land of Pairu Osta. As regards adoption of girl child the testimony of her father D.W.-6 namely Janardan Prasad Yadav has been relied upon along with Exhibit –B. Accordingly arrived at define findings that giving and taking ceremony of both the adopted child has been proved and the plaintiff has not been able to rebut the factum of valid adoption of appellant No. 1 and 2 by the Rani Ostain. 17. The Learned First Appellate Court has taken the rest of the issues No. I, II and IV together for adjudication and recorded findings that the claim of the plaintiff that she came to know about the execution of adoption deeds in the April, 1996 and filed the suit on 02.06.1997 cannot be entertained in view of the fact that just after the adoption plaintiff had filed a Revenue Misc. Case (Exhibit F) against the Rani Ostain in which Rani Ostain filed her show cause mentioning the fact of adoption. Similarly, another Cr. Misc. Case (Exhibit-G) for the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C., the plaintiff was also one of the parties in the column of second party wherein Rani Ostain had claimed about the appellant No. 1 as her adopted son. Therefore, the plaintiff had full knowledge about the execution of Exhibit A/1. Therefore, there was no valid reason to entertain such type of plea about no knowledge of the execution of adoption deeds. Learned trial court has failed to appreciate the above documentary evidence on technical grounds that the original 2025:JHHC:25872 12 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 petition and Vakalatnama of the plaintiff was not filed and such questions were not put to the plaintiff in her cross-examination, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, she had no valid cause of action and the suit was also found not maintainable. In result, the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Court was set aside by the Learned First Appellate Court and the Appeal was allowed on contest with cost. 18. The instant Second Appeal preferred by the daughter of original plaintiff namely Sanicharia Devi which was admitted vide Order dated 01.05.2003 on following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether deed of adoption was conclusive to prove the factum of adoption? (ii) Whether if the factum of adoption was challenged, it was necessary to be established by oral testimony of the witnesses who were present at the relevant time? In the course of argument, both the parties have raised the question of limitation in filing the suit. The learned Trial Court has decided the issue of limitation in favour of plaintiff and found the suit within time from the date of knowledge of the alleged execution of adoption deeds but the learned First Appellate Court has taken a different view on the basis of the same evidence and found the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation. Therefore, another substantial question of law is also formulated as under:- “Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? 19. Before proceeding to adjudicate the substantial questions of law, it is desirable to extract the relevant provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for proper appreciation of the case which are as under:- “5. Adoptions to be regulated by this Chapter. — (1)No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption 2025:JHHC:25872 13 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. (2)An adoption which is void shall neither create any rights in the adoptive family in favour of any person which he or she could not have acquired except by reason of the adoption, nor destroy the rights of any person in the family of his or her birth. 6. Requisites of a valid adoption.―No adoption shall be valid unless— (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption; (ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter.” “7. Capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption.―Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption: Provided that, if he has a wife living, he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.” Explanation.―If a person has more than one wife living at the time of adoption, the consent of all the wives is necessary unless the consent of any one of them is unnecessary for any of the reasons specified in the precedingproviso.” “8. Capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption.―Any female Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption: Provided that, if she has a husband living, she shall not adopt a son or daughter except with 2025:JHHC:25872 14 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 the consent of her husband unless the husband has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.” “9. Persons capable of giving in adoption.―(1)No person except the father or mother or the guardian of a child shall have the capacity to give the child in adoption. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the father or the mother, if alive, shall have equal right to give a son or daughter in adoption: Provided that such right shall not be exercised by either of them save with the consent of the other unless one of them has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.] (3)* * * * * (4) Where both the father and mother are dead or have completely and finally renounced the world or have abandoned the child or have been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind or where the parentage of the child is not known, the guardian of the child may give the child in adoption with the previous permission of the court to any person including the guardian himself. (5) Before granting permission to a guardian under sub-section (4), the court shall be satisfied that the adoption will be for the welfare of the child, due consideration being for this purpose given to the wishes of the child having regard to the age and understanding of the child and that the applicant for permission has not received or agreed to receive and that no person has made or given or agreed to make or give to the applicant any payment or reward in 2025:JHHC:25872 15 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 consideration of the adoption except such as the court may sanction. Explanation.―For the purposes of this section― (i) the expressions “father” and “mother” do not include an adoptive father and an adoptive mother; (ia) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a child or of both his person and property and includes― (a) a guardian appointed by the will of the child's father or mother, and (b) a guardian appointed or declared by a court; and (ii) “Court” means the city civil court or a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the child to be adopted ordinarily resides.” “10. Persons who may be adopted.―No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:― (i) he or she is a Hindu; (ii) he or she has not already been adopted; (iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption; (iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.” “11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.―In every adoption, the followingconditions must be complied with:― (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son’s son or son’s son’s son (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; 2025:JHHC:25872 16 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 (ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu daughter or son’s daughter (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; (iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be adopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted; (iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted; (v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons; (vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth [or in the case of an abandoned child or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place or family where it has been brought up] to the family of its adoption: Provided that the performance of dattahomam shall not be essential to the validity of an adoption.” “12. Effects of adoption.―An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created bythe adoption in the adoptive family: Provided that― (a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth; (b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to 2025:JHHC:25872 17 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth; (c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.” …. “16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.―Whenever 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.” 20. The overall factual spectrum of the case would reveal that two adoption deeds are challenged in this case allegedly executed by an illiterate lady after death of her son. 21. Admittedly the adoption of daughter (defendant No. 2) Kaushalya Kumari is purported to have haven executed in the year 1978 although admittedly at that time Rani Ostain had her own daughter Binda Devi who died in the year 1980. 22. The oral evidence of defendant particularly reliance placed on documentary evidence Exhibit C, D, E (series), F and G goes to show that the original adoption deed of 6.2.1973 in favour of Defendant No. 1 was cancelled by the adoptive mother Rani Ostain with specific allegation that she was brought to registry office by the father of the alleged child to execute Bhugatbandha of some land in stead of that she was kept in dark and a Godnama was executed. Again Exhibit-D shows that the cancellation deed Exhibit-C was cancelled retracting the story contains in Exhibit-C. Exhibit –E copy of Khatiyan dated 28.07.1988 in respect of lands pertaining to Khata No. 85 Okhiya Ostain’s name has been removed as Khata Holder having one share along with Most. Rani 2025:JHHC:25872 18 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 Ostain (sister-in-law of Okhiya Ostain). Exhibit E/1 (Khata No. 20, the name of Okhiya Ostain (plaintiff) has also been mentioned) shows that along with name of Rani Ostain in the carbon copy of Khatiyan dated 10.06.1988 the name of adopted son Belu Thakur and Kaushalya Kumari daughter of Saligram Osta has been mentioned. Exhibit E/2 is also certified copy of Khatiyan dated 10.06.1988 in respect of lands pertaining to Khata No. 21. 23. Therefore, adopted son and daughter who have no vested right in the landed property of the adoptive mother and father only by virtue of registration of adoption deeds, no legal transfer by the adoptive mother of any landed property belonging to her has been effected but under influence of guardians of adoptive child the name of adopted children has been included in the Khatiyan. The right of inheritance is available to the adopted children after death of adoptive mother and father as the case may be unless otherwise disposal of property has been made. 24. In the above background of this case, it shows the history of adoption of defendant No. 1 and 2. The learned trial Court at the very inception of deciding the Issue No. V relied upon two decisions of hon’ble Apex Court in “Addagada Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. Addagada Chenchamma & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 136” and “Kishori Lal vs. Mst. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504” and on the basis of principles laid down in Kashi Nath Rai vs. Mahadeo Rai & Ors, AIR 1977 PATNA 199 regarding necessity of proving “the giving and taking ceremony” is essential to the validity of an adoption placed the burden of proof of adoption on defendants. On the other hand, the learned First Appellate Court has acted upon only on the basis of contents of adoption deeds and oral testimony of witnesses examined by the defendants and failed to controvert the initial suspicion against the adoption deeds entertained by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record. Therefore, not meeting the reasonings of the trial Court while deciding the issue no. V corresponding to Issue No. III settled by learned First Appellate Court. 2025:JHHC:25872 19 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 25. In view of the above, I have to discuss some principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding burden of proof in the case of adoption as well as the first and second substantial questions of law i.e. (i) Whether deed of adoption was conclusive to prove the factum of adoption? and(ii)Whether if the factum of adoption was challenged, it was necessary to be established by oral testimony of the witnesses who were present at the relevant time? 26. In the case of Rahasa Pandiana (dead) by a LRS vs. Gokul Nanda Panda, AIR 1987 SC 962, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that since the adoption divert the normal and natural course of succession, the Court must be extremely alert and vigilant to guard against be ensnared by schammers who indulged in unscrupulous activities. If there are any suspicious circumstances, the burden is on one who claims to have been adopted to dispel the same beyond reasonable doubt. In a case of an adoption which is not supported by a registered document or any other evidence of a clinching nature if there exists suspicious circumstances, the same must be explained to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court by the party contending that there was an adoption. 27. In Pentacota Satynarayna & Ors. vs Pentakota Seethavatnam & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 4362. The Apex Court referred to the heavy onus that lies upon a person who stays out of a case for adoption and observed that while considering the question whether an adoption is genuine or not, the pro-pounder is obliged to dispel the cloud of suspicion and must satisfy the conscience of the Court about such an adoption. 28. In the instant case, the defendants have relied upon registered deed of adoption, the cancellation of which through registered document (although not recognized under law) by the executor of the said adoption deed namely Rani Ostain (Exhibit-C) has been proved by the defendants himself wherein it is mentioned that she has not executed adoption deed rather she went along with father of alleged adopted child to mortgage her land. Hence, under what circumstances the adoption deed was cancelled by the adoptive mother. Again, a deed of cancellation of the 2025:JHHC:25872 20 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 Exhibit C earlier cancellation deed was again cancelled by the executor Rani Ostain (adoptive mother) (Exhibit D). These circumstances clearly lead to the conclusion that Rani Ostain was persistently influenced by the father of natural birth of defendant No. 1 or other unscrupulous persons, who were indulged in grabbing the property of Rani Ostain after death of her husband and son. Therefore, presumption under Section 16 of the Act about genuineness of the registered document of an adoption stands rebutted and appears to be a suspicious document motivated with a view to grab the property dismantling the natural course of succession of the plaintiff. 29. In the instant case, the evidence of witnesses examined by defendants goes to show that in spite of adoption of the defendant No. 1 (son), he always remained in connection with his family of natural birth. He is by caste Yadav and also married in Yadav Community and most of the time his living was with natural family. Even after death of his alleged adoptive mother, resides with his natural family. This also implies that there was no actual giving and taking of the defendant No. l to his adoptive mother in contravention of provision of Section 11(6) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 30. The oral testimony of witnesses examined by defendants have also failed to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking of the adopted child as discussed in the learned Trial Court Judgment. 31. From the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I arrived at definite conclusion that mere registration of adoption deed is not conclusive evidence of factum of adoption of the presumption of law raised under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. This presumption is rebuttable. The general principle for challenging the adoption lies on the plaintiff. But it is also settled law that in case of suspicious circumstances under which the adoption deed was executed which has tendency to displace the natural course of succession, the burden lies on the propounder of the deed of adoption or any person who is claiming any right on the basis of adoption. The learned First 2025:JHHC:25872 21 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 Appellate Court has committed serious error of law by relying solely on the contents of adoption deeds involved in this case in order to prove the factum of adoption and without analyzing the oral testimony of witnesses examined by defendants, has found the two adoption deeds to be genuine and operative although it is proved beyond doubt that the adoptive mother Rani Ostain was all along under influence of some unscrupulous person including the father of defendant No. 1 Belu Thakur (adopted son). The cancellation deed was also registered by the Rani Ostain (Exhibit C). As regards the nature of adoption deed it was denied by her and her signature was obtained on execution of usufructuary mortgage of her lands just after the adoption, correction in revenue records were also sought including the name of adopted children also shows influential character committed with grabbing the property of Rani Ostain. Rani Ostaine also herself claimed to be deaf lady and she was brought to registry office by the Ram Raut (biological father of the Belu Thakur) on 06.02.1973 for execution of mortgage because she was in need of Rs. 100 lather on she heard HALLA that Ram Raut had got adoption deed executed in respect of his son in the name of Rani Ostain. She has denied any giving and taking of the child or she has ever executed any document of adoption and while cancelling the Exhibit D stated reasons that on 31.03.1973 one Ganga Osta brought her to Dumka Registry Office for executing Bhugatbandha (usufructuary mortgage) for her land and got her signature and actually got the adopted deed cancellation document. 32. It is also a fact that as per the contents of plaint, daughter of Rani Ostain namely Binda Devi was married and died issueless in the year 1980 hence the adoption of girl child which was in the year 1978 is also in contravention of law and hit by Section 11(ii) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Both the adopted children had maintained their nexus with the family of origin i.e. their biological parents which also reflects the suspicious circumstances. 33. Therefore I am of the firm view that the learned Trial Court has 2025:JHHC:25872 22 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 very wisely and aptly scrutinized and evaluated the overall points in the light of the evidences adduced by the parties while deciding the main issues involved in this case regarding validity of the adoption deeds and with sound reasons arrived at the right conclusion but the learned First Appellate Court without meeting out the reasoning of the learned Trial Court has taken a superficial view beyond the evidence available on record which is just on conjecture and surmises therefore findings recorded by learned trial court is hereby affirmed and the first appellate Court is set aside. 34. So far as another substantial question of law i.e. question of limitation is concerned, the learned Trial Court has decided in favour of plaintiff but the same has been reversed by learned First Appellate Court. It appears that the plea of defendants was that suit is barred by law of limitation in view of the Exhibit E (Series), F and G. Exhibit- F is C/C of Order dated 8.4.74 passed in Revenue Misc. No. 34/73-74 of the Court of the S.D.O. Dumka and Exhibit-G (C/C of order dated 18.9.1973 of the Court of S.D.O, Dumka passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 250/1973). There was a plea of Rani Ostain that she had taken an adopted child of one Ram Raut. It is also mentioned that she is a widow and one Sambhu Kapri putting under threat and inducing her and adamant to grab all properties of her. No copy of objection filed by the Rani Ostain has been adduced in evidence. Similarly, Exhibit G is a certified copy of order passed under Section 144 Cr. P.C. in Crl. Mis. Case No. 250/1973 which shows that in the name of parties, in the column of second party, Sl. No. 8 original name is Lakhiya Osta son of Pairu Osta which has been erased and name of Okhiya Ostain has been inserted which has not been explained by the Defendants moreover in which documents also copy of application filed by the applicant Rani Ostain and any copy of adoption deed in that proceeding has also not been brought on record. The plaintiff Okhiya Ostain was examined as a witness P.W-1 and cross-examined by defendants but attention has not been drawn towards Exhibit E, F and G and the certified copy of such document has also not been filed to impute 2025:JHHC:25872 23 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 the knowledge of execution of adoption deed which was itself cancelled by her twice vide Exhibit C and D. There is specific pleading and evidence of the plaintiff that she got knowledge of the execution of two adoption deeds in the month of April, 1996 and from that date within three years she has filed the suit. The learned trial Court has considered the above aspects on different angle but has rightly decided the issue in favour of plaintiff. 35. The documents relied upon by the defendants to show the knowledge of the plaintiff in absence of the production of relevant documents and without drawing the attention on those documents during plaintiff’s (P.W.-1) cross-examination cannot be taken against her. Therefore, the findings of learned Trial Court on issue No. IV regarding bar of limitation in institution of the suit appears to be reasonable and the reasons recorded by first appellate Court does not appear to be sound hence set aside. 36. The judgment of appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 held as under:- “……the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court……………….while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a 2025:JHHC:25872 24 S.A. No. 246 of 2002 different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it………..” 37. In view of the above discussions and reasons, this appeal is allowed, judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is restored and the judgment of reversal passed by Learned Fist Appellate Court is set aside. 38. Pending I.A.s if any, stands disposed of. 39. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial/appellate court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 28/08/2025 Basant/A.F.R.