The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish valid adoption as per statutory requirements; registered deeds are rebuttable and do not eliminate the need for actual proof.

JUDGMENT :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. This is defendants’ first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure questioning legality and sustainability of judgment and decree dated 14^th October 2010 passed in Civil Suit No.7-A/2009 by Third Additional District Judge (FTC), Manendragarh, District- Koria whereby suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was allowed and plaintiff was declared to be adopted son of Late Papa Rao and Laxmibai.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents/plaintiff filed a suit for his declaration to be adopted son of Late Papa Rao pleading therein that Papa Rao and Laxmi Bai were issue-less. Father of plaintiff and Papa Rao were known to each other as they were friend. On the request made by Papa Rao, biological parents of plaintiff agreed to give plaintiff in adoption. It is also pleaded that when plaintiff was aged about 5-6 years, plaintiff was given to Papa Rao and his wife Laxmi Bai in accordance with customs prevailing in their community. Give and take ceremony was completed in his childhood. He was brought up and grown along with his adoptive father and mother. During lifetime, Papa Rao had nominated the plaintiff as nominee in provident fund as also in group insurance and he was also declared to be son in his service record. It is also pleaded that a deed of adoption was also executed and got registered on 19.02.1998. Defendants/appellants have refused to accept registered deed of adoption and therefore civil suit was filed.

3. Defendant No.2 submitted written statement denying the contents of pleading made in plaint. It is also submitted that deed of adoption was registered on 29.08.1998 in the office of Deputy Registrar, Manendragarh. In the adoption deed, date of birth of plaintiff was prior to 25.03.1976, from which, it is apparent that on the date of execution of adoption deed age of plaintiff was above 21 years and therefore adoption on the date of registration was not valid. It is also submitted that for adoption of male child age of the child should not be more than 15 years. It is also submitted that in service records, there is no mention of successor and the claim as adopted son was made after long time from the date of death of Papa Rao i.e. 11.01.2001.

4. Learned trial Court based on pleadings made by respective parties has formulated as many as five issues for consideration and after conclusion of trial had allowed the suit and declared the plaintiff to be adopted son of Late Papa Rao.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that finding recorded by learned trial Court that respondent/plaintiff is an adopted son of Late Papa Rao is without there being any sufficient evidence in this regard. He contended that procedure of adoption is not proved in accordance with the provision under Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short “Act of 1956”). Give and take ceremony has not been proved by plaintiff in accordance with law and therefore impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision in case of N. L. Manjunatha Vs. B.L. Ananda @ B.L. Anantha Shankara passed in Regular Second Appeal No.443 of 2009 (PAR) decided on 10^th Day of July 2023 by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru .

6. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and would submit that plaintiff in plaint has categorically pleaded that give and take ceremony took place when he was 5-6 years of age. Adoption deed got registered in th