Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Hiralal Yadav S/o Late Budhan Bhokta - Appellant
Versus
Birbal Bhokta S/o Late Parvati Bhokta - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 354 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under article 227. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding necessity of recalling the adoption deed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on evidence and procedural issues. (Para 6) |
| 4. conclusion - cmp dismissed. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite party No.1.
2. So far the other Opposite parties are concerned, notice upon them have been dispensed with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated09.12.2024 as they are said to be proforma Opposite parties.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.VIII, Deoghar in Title (Declaratory) Suit No.47 of 2012 rejecting the petition dated 03.10.2023 filed for calling the original Adoption Deed No.351 dated 19.8.1948 Volume No.4/5, Page 194 to 197 from the Registry Office, Dumka.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is one of the plaintiff in the said declaratory suit and the petition was filed on 03.10.2023 to recall the adoption deed, however, the learned court has erroneously rejected the same. He submits that for deciding the suit as to whether the adoption is dependent on the said document is necessary and the learned court has wrongly passed the order. On this ground, he submits that said order may kindly be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submits that the petitioner is one of the plaintiffs and it is for the plaintiff to prove their case and the weakness, if any, of the defendants, cannot be a ground of passing such order for recalling the adoption deed.
6. From the records, it transpires that the plaintiff evidence was already closed on 31.08.2016 and till date, no effort has been taken on the part of the plaintiff to challenge the alleged adoption deed as forged and fabricated and on the ground of forge and fabrication the said adoption deed was prayed to be called. Further, the learned court has found that the petition dated 03.10.2023 was not supported by any affidavit and at belated stage the same was filed. The case was instituted by the plaintiff and it is for the plaintiff to prove their case and that petition was filed belatedly after filing of the written statement of the OP/defendants wherein the plea on the ground of adoption was taken and the document to that effect was also brought on the record. If such a situation is there, the learned court has rightly passed the order, and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
7. As such, C.M.P. No. 354 of 2024 is dismissed.
8. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
The High Court affirmed that plaintiffs carry the burden to prove their case and reiterated the importance of timely and supported evidence in procedural matters.
The court recognized the necessity to resolve the validity of the adoption deed despite earlier failures to present competent evidence, underscoring the importance of proving authenticity in property....
Reinstatement of legal principles concerning intervention in property disputes, emphasizing the validity of prior rulings regarding adoption. Court protects parties' rights by ensuring proper judicia....
The court has discretion to allow late submission of documents if necessary for justice, despite prior availability of photocopies.
A suit for declaration of adoption cannot be withdrawn due to formal defects when the core grievance is not addressed, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in legal claims.
Point of law: Capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption-Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. Provided that, if he has a ....
The court upheld the validity of a registered adoption deed, emphasizing that the suit challenging it was barred by limitation as it was filed 33 years after the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the ad....
The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity, and witnesses must be given an opportunity to explain any doubts raised about their statements.
Adoption – In the event of there being a registered document pertaining to adoption, there would be presumption that adoption has been made in accordance with law.
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
