Adoption Through A Notarized Deed Not Valid, Registered Deed Required: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court was considering a Special Appeal against an order of the single judge allowing the claim of the natural guardians and rejecting the claim of the Appellants.
The Allahabad High Court has held that adoption through notarized Adoption Deed, in the State of Uttar Pradesh is not valid and a registered deed is required for the same.
The Division Bench was considering a Special Appeal against an order of the single judge allowing the claim of the natural guardians and rejecting the claim of the Appellants on the ground that the alleged adoption deed was just notarized and not registered, whereas the law requires it to be registered.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar observed, "....As the alleged adoption deed is a notarized deed and not a registered deed in accordance with law, therefore, no benefit could accrue at least before a writ court in favour of the appellant. The proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, 1956 as applicable in the State of U.P. merely provides that secondary evidence of such document shall be admissible in the circumstances and the manner laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Now, secondary evidence would be admissible only when the primary evidence existed but was not available for any reason. Here, it is not the case of the appellants that there was an adoption deed duly registered which is not available, therefore, there is secondary evidence. The case of the appellants in the very first instance is that there was only a notarized adoption deed, therefore, the proviso also does not help the appellants."
The Appellants were represented by Advocate Prateek Tewari, while the Respondent was represented by C.S.C.
Facts of the Case
Counsel for the Appellant relied upon a judgment of the Court and contended that Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as applicable in the State of U.P. was considered and it was held that compassionate appointment could not be denied merely on the ground that adoption deed was not a registered one. It was argued that the amendment provides that additional evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall be admissible to defend any unregistered adoption deed.
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset noted that a conjoint reading of the amended Section 16(2) of the Act, 1956 as applicable in the State of U.P. and Section 17 (1)(f) and (3) of the Act, 1908 as applicable in the State of U.P. makes it clear that after January 01, 1977, any adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only by way of a registered deed and not otherwise.
"There is no exception to the aforesaid said statutory requirements. There is nothing in the provision whether under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) as applicable in the State of U.P. of Section 16 of the Act, 1956 or the Act, 1908 which could lend itself to even a remote suggestion that an unregistered deed could be relied upon to claim adoption as is being claimed herein. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant was rendered in a case of compassionate appointment where a succession certificate had already been issued to the appellant-petitioner and he had also been paid post-retiral dues. As regards the other observations, with respect, we have perused the provision itself and do not find any such stipulation therein....", the Court observed.
The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Arun And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Affairs Govt. Sectt. Lko. And 7 Others
Appearances:
Appellants- Advocate Prateek Tewari, Advocate Praveen Kumar Tewari
Respondents- C.S.C., Advocate Shashank Shukla