Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3573 of 2018 2025:PHHC: 019431 Sukhdev Singh (respondent N: 2 herein) was shown to have been adopted by Mukhar Singh. He also alleged mutaon Nos.7471, 8286 and 8740 regarding succession of Mukhar Singh and Surjit Kaur to be null and void. 3.2 Contesng the suit, defendants claimed that plainﬀ has no right to challenge the adopon of Bhupinder Singh – defendant No.1, who was adopted by Mukhar Singh. During his life me, said Mukhar Singh and that a.er his death, he or his wife never challenged the adopon. A.er death of Mukhar Singh, mutaon of inheritance was sanconed in favour of said Bhupinder Singh and her adopve mother Surjit Kaur. 3.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the pares was taken on record. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 17.03.2014 and the Appellate Court aﬃrmed the ﬁndings. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that adopon deed (Ex.D1) was not a valid document because Mukhar Singh never took consent from his wife Surjit Kaur while adopng defendant No.1 – Bhupinder Singh. It is also contended that no cogent evidence was produced regarding the ceremonies of giving and taking as required under Secon 11 of the Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act, 1956 and therefore, the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. 5. It will be relevant to reproduce the observaons made by the First Appellate Court:- “20.The legal posion as argued by the learned counsels for the appellants is that adopon without consent of living wife is not valid by virtue of Secon 7 of Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act and unless and unl necessary requirements and condions of Sub Secon (vi) of Secon 11 are shown to be fulﬁlled and further no adopon ceremonies were held nor there was compliance of provisions of Secon 7 and 9 of the Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act and as such, no adopon could be inferred and further actually giving and taking ceremonies must be proved is not disputed and the observaons as made by Hon'ble High Courts as well as Hon'ble Apex Court on this point are also not disputed, but, the arguments raised by p. 2 Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3573 of 2018 2025:PHHC: 019431 learned counsels for the appellants and law cited is not applicable to the facts of the present case especially in the circumstances that as per the provisions of Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act, any male Hindu, who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adopon 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 jurisdicon to be of unsound mind and in the instant case, it is mandatory to take the consent of the wife, who was living with the husband at that me. The adopon deed Ex.D1 is a registered one and duly proved on record. Though, it is not speciﬁcally recited in Ex.D1 that Mukhar Singh has obtained the consent of his wife, but, it is impliedly there especially in the circumstances when deed of adopon Ex.D1 is dated 13.10.1993 and the concerned person i.e. Mukhar Singh, husband of Surjit Kaur died on 13.10.1996 and perusal of the ﬁle further reveals that mutaon of inheritance of deceased Mukhar Singh has been sanconed in favour of Bhupinder Singh defendant No.1 and Surjit Kaur in equal shares and during the life me of Surjit Kaur, who died in the year 2002, she has never challenged the adopon deed nor she raised any objecon before any authority that her husband has adopted defendant No.1 without her consent. She has never ﬁled any applicaon before any authority challenging the adopon deed which has been proved on record as Ex.D1 and even therea.er when Mukhar Singh died on 13.10.1996 and mutaon of inheritance has been sanconed to the extent of half share in favour of adopted son and half share in favour of Surjit Kaur, who also remained alive ll 2002 and she never challenged the mutaon during her life me. Otherwise also, this adopon deed has been given eﬀect to and all the documents placed on record by Bhupinder Singh i.e. his ﬁ.h standard pass cerﬁcate as Ex.D10, middle standard pass cerﬁcate as Ex.D11, matriculaon cerﬁcate as Ex.D12, +2 (12th standard) pass cerﬁcate as Ex.D13 and name of the parents of respondent No.1 in the cerﬁcates has been menoned as Mukhar Singh and Surjit Kaur being father and mother and there is also raon card Ex.D15 showing Bhupinder Singh to be of the age of 08 years and he has been menoned as son of Surjit Kaur. The maCer does not end here, as Surjit Kaur has obtained a loan from the bank and he p. 3 Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3573 of 2018 2025:PHHC: 019431 has duly discharged his liability by paying the same and nobody except Bhupinder Singh defendant No.1 has paid back the loan as proved on record vide Ex.D14. Another document Ex.D14 is a Card for the Bhog Ceremony of Surjit Kaur and Bhupinder Singh is shown to be her son. The perusal of the ﬁle further reveals that a suit has been ﬁled for recovery against Bhupinder Singh being adopted son of Surjit Kaur tled as State Bank of India Vs. Bhupinder Singh and others, wherein, a statement has been made by learned counsel for plainﬀ vide Ex.D4, that the defendants have repaid the loan amount and there being nothing due towards them, he did not want to proceed with the same and wanted to withdraw the same. Said suit was dismissed on the basis of above statement of counsel for plainﬀ in that suit vide order Ex.D5 and subsequently document Ex.D14 was issued in regard to payment having been made by Bhupinder Singh to the bank. 21. As far as the proving of the document Ex.D1, the deed of adopon, is concerned, it stands duly proved on record as its scribe has been examined and witness has also been examined and more so, the document is also a registered one and as per the provisions of Secon 16 of Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act, which reads to the eﬀect that whenever any document registered under any law for the me being in force is produced before any Court purporng to record an adopon made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adopon, the Court shall presume that the adopon has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and unl it is disproved. Further as held by our own Hon'ble High Court as well as other Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is presumpon to a registered document under Secon 16 of the Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act and as such Secon 16 of the Act gives shelter to the registered document and if there is a registered document relang to adopon, the presumpon shall be drawn in favour of adopon and it is then for the other side to disprove that adopon has been made under the Act. The presumpon has to be disproved by the other party by leading cogent evidence in rebuCal. When no such evidence is led, the legal presumpon remains unaﬀected not having been disproved. There is no opon le. to the Court and it is bound to take the fact as proved unl evidence is given to disprove it and the party interested in disproving it must produce such evidence if he can. The presumpon cannot be disproved by p. 4 Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3573 of 2018 2025:PHHC: 019431 casng aspersion on the credibility of the oral evidence accompanying the registered document. The oral evidence is in the nature of an addional proof and if the Court cast doubt on its veracity, it could disregard it. So, in the instant case, the document Ex.D1 has been proved on record by examining scribe and the marginal witness and it is a registered one and as such, protecon of Secon 16 of the Act is certainly there and presumpon aCached to it, though, rebuCable has not been rebuCed by the appellants by leading cogent evidence and mere recital cited on oath that document is suspicious and forged and fabricated one, is not suﬃcient especially on the ground that no ground of forgery has been taken nor they dared to examine any expert witness to disprove the thumb impressions/signatures of the adopve father on Ex.D1, which otherwise stands proved on record by leading cogent evidence by the respondents-defendants. Otherwise also, during the life me of deceased Mukhar Singh, it has not been challenged Jangir Singh, original plainﬀ, who is none else, but, real brother of Mukhar Singh, nor by the present appellants and the argument raised by learned counsels for the appellants that neither any ceremonies qua taking the son in adopon nor giving has ever been held, hence, the same is void, is also devoid of any force especially in the circumstances when the parents who have taken the son in adopon have since died. The instant suit has been ﬁled by Jangir Singh plainﬀ challenging the adopon deed and the only person who gave his son in adopon namely Sukhdev Singh has been examined by respondents defendants, who has speciﬁcally stated that religious ceremonies were held and he alongwith his wife has given his son namely Bhupinder Singh to deceased Mukhar Singh and Surjit Kaur and they took the son in their lap and it has also been proved by another witness that Akhand Path was held at that me and kirtan was recited and even parshad was distributed, which not only proves the fact that proper giving and taking ceremony of the son of adopon has duly been proved on record in a ceremonial way as per procedure in the society and religious ceremonies are performed at such like occasions which have been performed. So, from the evidence on record, it has been duly proved on record that Bhupinder Singh defendant No.1 has been given in adopon by his natural parents to the adopve parent and the adopon deed Ex.D1 has p. 5 Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3573 of 2018 2025:PHHC: 019431 also been duly proved on record as required under the Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act. 22.The present appellants have never challenged the adopon immediately as adopon ceremonies were held and child was taken in adopon in the year 1993 vide Ex.D1, which is duly proved on record and therea.er adopve father died in the year 1996 and mutaon of inheritance was duly sanconed vide Ex.P5 in favour of the adopted son as well as Surjit Kaur widow of Mukhar Singh adopve father of Bhupinder Singh, which has never been challenged by any body and adopted son remained alongwith his adopve mother, who remained alive ll 2002 and she never challenged the adopon. Rather, they lived together and even certain cases were ﬁled in the year 2005, which were also dismissed and another suit has been ﬁled by Bhupinder Singh against Sukhdev Singh and Karnail Singh vide Ex.D7 for possession by way of paron of land measuring 1515 muraba gaj 03 muraba feet and in that suit, counter-claim was also ﬁled and that suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.09.2009 vide order Ex.D8 and adopon deed has been challenged by the brother of the adopve father ﬁrstly by way of the instant suit in the year 2007, which certainly has been ﬁled a.er lapse of such a long me, which is not permissible under the law. The learned counsels for the appellants contended that there is no limitaon for ﬁling suit on the basis of inheritance, but, in the instant case, it is not the natural inheritance and the same is being claimed only on the ground of adopon deed Ex.D1 dated 13.10.1993, vide which defendant No.1 has been adopted by Mukhar Singh and Surjit Kaur since deceased, is illegal and void and for such like cases, limitaon is certainly three years and the suit is beyond limitaon.” 6. The above-said ﬁndings as returned by the First Appellate Court would reveal that adopon deed dated 13.10.1993 is a registered document. It is scribed Daya Nand and witnessed by two persons, namely Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate and Bhupinder son of Dalip Singh. The scribe as well as aCesng witness Bhupinder Singh son of Dalip proved due execuon of adopon deed. The adopon deed is signed not only by Mukhar Singh, but also by the natural parents of defendant No.1 - Bhupinder Singh, i.e. Sukhdev Singh and his wife. It has been rightly observed by the Appellate Court that p. 6 Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3573 of 2018 2025:PHHC: 019431 no doubt, it is not speciﬁcally menoned in Ex.D1 that Mukhar Singh had obtained consent of his wife, but there are numerous circumstances showing the implied consent of his wife Surjit Kaur. Adopon deed was executed on 13.10.1993. Mukhar Singh, who took defendant No.1 – Bhupinder Singh in adopon remained alive ll 13.10.1996 and on his death, mutaon of inheritance was sanconed not only in favour of Surjit Kaur, but also in favour of defendant No.1 – Bhupinder Singh. These mutaons were sanconed in equal shares. Surjit Kaur then expired in the year 2002 and during her life me, she never challenged the adopon nor raised any objecon before any authority regarding the adopon of defendant No.1 by her husband. Even various documents of defendant No.1 have been referred by the appellate Court in which said defendant No.1 – Bhupinder Singh is shown to be the son of his adopve parents, i.e. Mukhar Singh and Surjit Kaur. It has further been observed on the basis of evidence that when Surjit Kaur had obtained loan from the bank, it was defendant No.1, who discharged the liability. 7. The above-said circumstances make it amply clear that there was consent of Surjit Kaur, the wife of Mukhar Singh in taking defendant No.1 in adopon. As far as ceremonies are concerned, Ex.D1 – adopon deed being a registered document, the ceremonies are presumed in view of Secon 16 of Hindu Adopon and Maintenance Act, 1956, which reads as under:- “16. Presumpon as to registered documents relang to adopon.―Whenever any document registered under any law for the me being in force is produced before any court purporng to record an adopon made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adopon, the court shall presume that the adopon has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and unl it is disproved.” 8. As Ex.D1 is duly proved to have been validly executed and the same being a registered document, the Court is bound to presume that adopon took place in compliance of the provisions of the Act, unless and unl it is disapproved. Since, it is the plainﬀ-appellant, who challenged the p. 7 Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3573 of 2018 2025:PHHC: 019431 adopon, so onus had shi.ed upon him to disapprove the adopon. However, he failed to produce any cogent evidence in this regard. 9. Apart from above, it has been rightly observed by the First Appellate Court that the adopon deed was executed way back on 13.10.1993. Mukhar Singh and Surjit Kaur, i.e. adopve parents of defendant No.1 – Bhupinder Singh never challenged the adopon. The present suit was ﬁled by plainﬀ – Jangir Singh, i.e. brother of Mukhar Singh in January, 2007, i.e. much beyond the period of 03 years from the date of adopon and so, the suit has been rightly held to be barred by limitaon. 10. On account of the enre discussions as above, this Court does not ﬁnd any ground whatsoever to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent ﬁndings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of the Courts below. As such, ﬁnding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. February 10, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No p. 8 Sarita Rani 2025.02.11 17:00 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

JANGIR SINGH THR LRS v. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS

Judgment text