Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.333 of 2018
(25.8.2023)
Satya Narayan Prasad Gupta
@ Sato Sao @ Satya Prakash
Prasad .... Appellant
vs.
Bijay Kumar Gupta & Ors. .... Respondents
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Declaratory suit in regard to adoption comes within jurisdiction of Civil Courts – However, sometimes, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by special legislations with regard to civil suits of particular nature providing alternative forum for adjudication of same for the purpose of speedy disposal or otherwise – Unless jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by such express legislations or by necessary implication, jurisdiction of Civil Courts regarding civil matters cannot be excluded – If it is found that jurisdiction in regard to adoption has not been conferred upon Family Courts, jurisdiction of Civil Courts in regard to adoption matters does not stand excluded. (Para 15)
Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 7, 8 and 20 – Jurisdiction of Family Court to deal with matters connected with adoption – There is no jurisdiction of Family Court in regard to adoption – Act has overriding effect over all other previous Acts – As such, it will prevail over all other previous Acts which may have inconsistent provisions – Other jurisdiction upon Family Court cannot be conferred except by enactment or explicit implication or clear inference – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts or any other Court in regard to subject matter of jurisdiction of Family Court is barred – As such, no suit declaratory or otherwise in regard to adoption comes within jurisdiction of Family Courts – Family Court is one spot forum for family litigations – Adjudication of other civil matters comes within domain of Civil Courts – Family Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate any adoption matters – Family Court has passed impugned judgment without jurisdiction – Impugned Judgment is nullity and non-est. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Decree passed by a court without jurisdiction on the subject-matter or on the grounds on which decree made which goes to root of its jurisdiction or lacks inherent jurisdiction is a coram non judice – A decree passed by such a Court is a nullity and is non est – Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings – Defect of jurisdiction strikes at very authority of court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of party. (Para 21)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 21 and Order VII Rule 10 – Jurisdiction of court – Territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction – Objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues – If such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage – Jurisdiction as to subject-matter is totally distinct and stands on a different footing – Where a court has no jurisdiction over subject-matter of suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter – An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity – Plaint can be returned at any stage of suit and appellate/revisional courts are also competent to return plaint after setting aside impugned judgment/decree – Presentation of such return of plaint to Court of competent jurisdiction is subject to provisions of Limitation Act, 1963. (Paras 22, 25 and 27)
Jitendra Kumar, J. – The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 29.01.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheikhpura, in Title Suit (Adoption) No. 21 of 2009, whereby learned Family Court has dismissed the petition of the Appellant/Plaintiff seeking declaration that the Appellant/Plaintiff is adopted son of Bhola Sao and Parwati Devi (both deceased) and the Appellant/Plaintiff is legal heir and representative of Bhola Sao and Parwati Devi.
2.1. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff as per the pleading is that one Bhola Sao alias Bhola Halwai had some landed property including building in the town Sheikhpura. He was married to one Parwati Devi (now deceased). They had no child. So they thought it fit to adopt a son, and accordingly, placed proposal to his brother-in-law / Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and his wife Sabo Devi (deceased), who agreed to give their son (Appellant/Plaintiff) Satya Narayan Prasad Gupta @ Sato Sao @ Satya Prakash Prasad, in the year 1967, who was ten years’ old. Accordingly, on 15.05.1967, both the parties i.e Bhola Sao and his wife Parwati Devi and Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and his wife Sabo devi along with some respectable persons of the locality were invited at Maharani Asthan, Bypass, Sheikhpura, P.O. and District - Sheikhpura. Purohit, Jay Pandit Ji started puja-path and hoam before the sacred fire and Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and his wife Sabo Devi gave the Plaintiff to Bhola Sao and his wife Parwati Devi, who accepted the Appellant/Plaintiff as his son in presence of the respectable persons, invitees and witnesses : (i). Khaderan Lal, son of late Bihari Lal, resident of Mohalla Bangaliper P.S.- Sheikhpura, district-Sheikhpura. (ii) Jagdish Prasad, son of late Bachu Lal, resident of Mohalla - Bangaliper, P.S. & district-Sheikhpura. (iii). Anirudh Singh, Son of late Dhanushdhari Singh, resident of village- Barmaper, P.O.- Sarari, P.S.- Sarari, District- Sheikhpura. (iv) . Daso Mahto, son of late Saukhi Mahton, Kamasi Bazar, P.O.- Sheikhpura, P.S. Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura and several other persons. Thereafter, Bhola Sao distributed sweets as prasad to the present persons. Since then, late Bhola Sao and late Parwati Devi started living with Appellant/Plaintiff and gave love and affection to him as their son and the Appellant/Plaintiff also became a devotee, follower, loyal and obedient to his adoptive parents.
2.2. It has been further pleaded that Bhola Sao died in the year 2002 and his Shraddh was performed by the Appellant/Plaintiff and his son. It has further been pleaded that since Bhola Sao had got no child and the Appellant/Plaintiff had been adopted by the said Bhola Sao and Parwati Devi, Ramchandra Prasad Bedil had greedy eye over the properties of the deceased Bhola Sao. Hence, he willfully gave the Appellant/Plaintiff in adoption so that he might help him in misappropriating the property of Bhola Sao, but as this Appellant/Plaintiff is very loyal to his adoptive father, there arose differences between Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and the Appellant/Plaintiff. After death of Bhola Sao, Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and his son Jai Prasad Gupta instigated Parwati Devi against the Appellant/Plaintiff causing some differences in between the adoptive mother and the Appellant/Plaintiff.
2.3. It has further been pleaded that during his lifetime, Bhola Sao purchased a piece of land, measuring two decimals, half in the name of his wife Parwati Devi and half in the name of this Appellant/Plaintiff, situated at Mouza- Sheikhpura, Thana No. 178, Touzi No. 887, Khata No. 174, Plot No. 520 through registered sale-deeds dated 19.11.1982.
2.4. Later, it came to the notice of the Appellant/Plaintiff that khata number and boundary of the said land was wrongly mentioned in the sale deed, so he approached the vendor who executed a correction deed on 30.04.1983 and produced the same before the Sub-Registrar, Sheikhpura on 03.05.1983 for registration. But as the deed of Parwati Devi has not been corr
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of adoption, as the Family Courts Act, 1984 did not confer jurisdic....
The validity of adoption requires clear, cogent evidence of factum, including actual giving and taking; mere documentation is insufficient without proof of the legal requirements.
The validity of an adoption must establish consent of both natural parents, failing which the adoption may be considered invalid under Hindu law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and the physical act of giving and taking of adoption did not take place in acc....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove adoption strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, including the con....
Fiscal entries like mutation do not represent or create any title or interest property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the adoption deed and the plaintiff's lack of locus standi to question the adoption.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to prove the existence of local tribal or family custom permitting the adoption of a female child under ancient Hindu ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
