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 claims.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Dumka in Title Suit No.125 of 2014 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Court for recall of the order dated 21.08.2023.

3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the original plaintiff namely Sanichar Rai married with Susti Devi long year ago and the original plaintiff having no issues and spouse decided to adopt the child to care them and accordingly the present petitioner has been adopted in due process of Hindu Rituals and also complying the statutory requirement and prepared Adoption Deed which was registered before Dumka Registry being Registered Deed No.199/1981 and legally adopted the present petitioner. He submits that the opposite party No.2 fraudulently by making a forged document prepared the document as an Adoption Deed in which the adoptee is the opposite party No.1 and adopter is the original plaintiff namely Sanichar Rai. He submits that the opposite party No.2 by impersonating the original plaintiff registered the adoption deed before the Dumka Registry, being Registered Adoption Deed No.44 of 2006 and accordingly the opposite party No.2 made claim over the property of the original plaintiff in light of the said Registration Adoption Deed. He submits that the adoption deed was said to be forged one and for that the petition was filed before the learned Court to call for the competent authority to prove the adoption deed which was allowed by order dated 21.07.2017 and one clerk has appeared on the said Registry Office on 28.01.2018 along with the document, however, the Court was engaged with other works and in view of that he was not examined on that day. He submits that however, both the deeds are on the record. He further submits that thereafter another petition was filed to recall the competent person to prove the said deed which was further allowed by order dated 08.02.2023. He submits that on that day the clerk of the said Registry office has not appeared before the learned Court and Peon has appeared and in view of that the learned Court has not examined the Peon saying that he was not a competent person to prove the said document and thereafter the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order dated 21.08.2023 and in view of that the petition has been filed to recall the said order which has been decided by impugned order dated 16.12.2023. He submits that it has been dismissed only on the ground the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove the said document. On this ground, he submits that appropriate order may kindly be passed for proving the said document.

4. Mr. Sanjiv Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposes the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the said order and twice the opportunity was provided and the issue is pending since long in spite of that the said documents have not been proved and in view of that no case of interference is made out and this petition may kindly be dismissed.

5. From the pleadings of the C.M.P. as well as impugned order, it transpires that the said adoption deed is under challenge and twice the learned Court has already allowed the application for calling a person from the Registry Office, Dumka to prove the said document and how that document has not been proved that has been noted in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The said document is already on the record and by the impugned order the learned Court has only be