The absence of a formal adoption deed does not invalidate an adoption if supported by sufficient evidence, and a marriage under the Special Marriage Act is valid without traditional rituals.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

Both these appeals under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), have assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 63-N/13 of 2022 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26-09-2019 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 91/1 of 2014.Hence they are being taken up together.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Mohan Lal, son of Shri Pyare Lal, was a permanent resident of Amarpur Mohallah, Nahan. He later shifted to Paonta Sahib and worked as a Document Writer in the courts there. Mohan Lal purchased land measuring 8 biswas through a sale deed dated 07.04.1993, registered on 13.04.1993, from Smt. Karam Kaur (widow of Shri Nazar Singh), Gurcharan Singh, Nirmal Singh (sons of Shri Nazar Singh), Kumari Hardeep Kaur, Smt. Balbir Kaur, and Smt. Charanjeet Kaur (daughters of Shri Nazar Singh), residents of Village Kunja, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, for Rs.17,500/-, comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 67/83, Khasra No. 181, situated at Mauza Kunja. Mohan Lal constructed a house on part of the land and used the remaining portion as a kitchen garden and courtyard. It is submitted that Mohan Lal married Rekha Devi, resident of Village Bhagwan, Tehsil Roorki, District Saharanpur, but the marriage failed, and she left his house permanently to live with her parents.

3. It is further submitted that Mohan Lal had no children of his own, while his brother, Shyam Lal, had three sons and two daughters. Accordingly, Mohan Lal adopted the plaintiff, the youngest son of Shyam Lal and Smt. Bimla Devi, on 31.07.1980. All necessary adoption rites, customs, and ceremonies under Hindu law were performed, including the giving and taking ceremony, making the plaintiff the legally adopted son of Mohan Lal. The plaintiff was raised and educated by Mohan Lal, who admitted him to various schools, including Govt. Nursery School, Nahan, Rajkiya Kanya Prathimik Pathshala, Nahan, and later Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Taruwala. In all educational records, Aadhar Card, Identity Card, Driving License, and other documents, Mohan Lal is recorded as the plaintiff’s father. Upon Mohan Lal’s death on 21.01.2013, the plaintiff performed his last rites, including Braham Bhoj and consigning his ashes to the Ganga at Haridwar. When the plaintiff approached the Patwari for mutation of inheritance, he discovered that mutation had already been entered in favour of the defendant (Rapat No. 507, dated 23.02.2013). The plaintiff contends that the defendant falsely claims to be Mohan Lal’s widow, whereas she was merely a maid who later lived with him as a concubine without any legal marriage. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was previously married to another man and had five children from that marriage, making her ineligible to inherit Mohan Lal’s property.

4. The defendant, in her written statement, denies the plaintiff’s adoption and claims to be Mohan Lal’s legally wedded wife under the Special Marriage Act. She alleges that Mohan Lal had no relations with his family after shifting to Paonta Sahib and that the plaintiff never cared for him during his illness. She further states that Mohan Lal had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to one Anuj Kumar, which was later cancelled, and the property’s value exceeds Rs.72,00,000/-, making the suit undervalued. She denies that the plaintiff was ever adopted and asserts that she, as Mohan Lal’s widow, is the sole legal heir entitled to inherit the property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act

5. The trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether Sh. Shyam Lal and his wife Smt. Bimla Devi had given the plaintiff in adoption on 21.07.1980 to Sh. Mohan Lal deceased son of Sh. Pyare Lal and performed all rites, customs and ceremonies at the time of adoption, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has inherite