A valid adoption under Hindu law requires the physical ceremony of giving and taking. Without proof of this mandatory ritual, the mere execution of a document is insufficient for legal validity, and appellate courts will not disturb concurrent factual findings unless they are proven perverse or illegal.

ORDER :

1. The instant Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deedwana District Deedwana-Kuchaman in Civil Appeal No.21/2018, whereby the learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No.33/2012. By virtue of the aforesaid judgments, the suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff seeking cancellation of the adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 came to be decreed and the appeal preferred by the present appellant-defendant was dismissed.

1.1. Aggrieved thereby, the present second appeal has been instituted invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC with a prayer to set aside the concurrent findings and decrees passed by the Courts below.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Deedwana seeking cancellation of the alleged adoption deed dated 20.07.2009. In the plaint, it was averred that the husband of the respondent-plaintiff had expired approximately twenty-three years ago and out of the wedlock, she was blessed with two daughters namely Santosh and Munni. It was specifically pleaded that the appellant-defendant was never adopted by her in accordance with Hindu customs, rituals and mandatory legal requirements contemplated under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The respondent-plaintiff alleged that the parents of the appellant-defendant, with an oblique motive to usurp and grab her agricultural property, deceitfully took her to the office of the Sub Registrar, Maulasar on the pretext of completing certain pending partition proceedings relating to agricultural land. Taking undue advantage of her illiteracy and vulnerability, her thumb impressions were allegedly obtained on certain documents without disclosing their true nature and contents. Subsequently, an adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 came to be prepared and notarized, wherein it was falsely recited that the appellant-defendant would henceforth be known as Hari Ram, adopted son of deceased Bholu Ram, husband of the respondent-plaintiff.

2.1. It was further pleaded that the biological father of the appellant-defendant namely Suresh Kumar procured the said adoption deed by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. The respondent-plaintiff asserted that the appellant-defendant had already been adopted by one Chunni Devi and, therefore, there existed neither any legal necessity nor any lawful occasion for a second adoption. It was further contended that the appellant- defendant never resided with the respondent-plaintiff, nor was he ever maintained, nurtured or educated by her; rather, he continued to remain under the care and custody of his biological parents. According to the respondent-plaintiff, she came to know about the alleged fraudulent adoption deed only on 13.08.2012 when the appellant-defendant instituted proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, Deedwana claiming rights over her agricultural land. Thereupon, she applied for a certified copy of the alleged adoption deed and upon receiving the same on 03.09.2012, she discovered that her thumb impressions had been fraudulently utilized for preparation of the impugned document. It was also pleaded that the alleged adoption deed did not contain any recital regarding the mandatory ceremony of actual giving and taking of the child, nor did