Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 2197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ACJ., RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, J.
Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ramaram Alleged To Be Adopted – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 523 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
For the Appellants : Mr. C.P. Soni
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhavit Sharma and Mr. Hukam Singh
A declaratory decree on legal status remains binding unless challenged, irrespective of the non-joinder of parties in the original suit.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Compassionate appointment - Respondent claimed to be adopted son of deceased Govt. Servant. Application for appointment rejected on grounds of ineligibility. Declaratory decree granted by trial court recognized legal status as adopted son. Court upheld decree despite appellants not being parties in the suit. (Paras 2, 4, 9)
(B) Legal Status - Declaratory decree remains operative unless challenged. Court cannot question validity of decree in this appeal. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Respondent claimed adoption by deceased Joga Ram and sought compassionate appointment. Initial application rejected due to ineligibility under the Act. A suit led to a declaratory decree recognizing him as adopted son, but relief against appellants was denied.
Findings of Court:
The declaratory decree of legal status remains valid and enforceable against the appellants, despite their non-joinder in the original suit.
Issues: Whether the declaratory decree binds the appellants and if the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: A declaratory decree of legal status is binding unless overturned; appellants' non-participation does not invalidate the decree's effect.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby respondent's application for grant of compassionate appointment has been allowed.
2. The necessary facts of the appeal are that the respondent claiming himself to be adopted son of Late Joga Ram (deceased Govt. Servant) and his wife Smt. Heero Devi applied for compassionate appointment on 07.09.2016. However, the application was rejected on the ground that the respondent-petitioner was not eligible to be adopted in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The respondent - petitioner thereafter filed a suit seeking a declaratory decree of his legal status as adopted son. There were many reliefs also sought against the present appellants. The suit was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018. Though, the learned trial court declared the legal status of the respondent writ petitioner as the legally adopted son of deceased - Joga Ram but the relief sought against the present appellants was not granted. When he again applied for grant of compassionate appointment, no order was passed.
3. On the strength of the declaratory decree of legal status as the legally adopted son of deceased Joga Ram, application for compassionate appointment was filed, which was again rejected giving rise to writ petition.
4. Learned Single Judge while taking into consideration that the respondent enjoyed the legal status of adopted son of deceased Govt. Servant - Joga Ram, allowed the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the decree passed by the Civil Court is not binding on them because there were not party. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that though in the suit, reliefs were sought against the present appellants directing all the benefits to be granted to the respondent-writ petitioner (plaintiff in the suit), but those reliefs were rejected and, therefore, were not open for the respondent-petitioner to raise a claim for compassionate appointment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the respondent-petitioner's claim that he is validly adopted son of deceased - Joga Ram, is false, as in various certificates viz. OBC, matriculation, graduation and police verification, the respondent-petitioner mentioned the name of his biological father and not adoptive father.
7. We have gone through the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 passed by the trial court. We find that the plaintiff in his plaint sought declaratory relief of his legal status as legally adopted son of deceased Joga Ram. He also prayed for other reliefs against the present appellants, though the present appellants were not impleaded as party in the said suit.
8. Learned trial court while granting declaratory decree of legal status, rejected other prayers for the reason that the suit qua other reliefs were found bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Nevertheless, declaratory decree of the legal status was not challenged by anyone.
9. Once declaration of a legal status is granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, unless avoided through appropriate legal proceedings, the declaratory decree shall remain operative and in force. True it is that the appellants were not party in the said suit but for obtaining a declaratory decree of legal status, it was not necessary to implead the appellants as party. The reliefs sought directly against the appellants were rejected by the trial court because the appellants were not party in the civil suit but that would not denude the trial court of its jurisdiction to grant a declaratory decree of legal status that the respondent-petitioner was the legally adopted son of deceased - Joga Ram.
10. Though, learned counsel for the appellants sought to dispute the correctness of the declaratory decree in favour of the respondent stating that such decree could not be granted, we are of the view that present is not a forum
