Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Zerom Oraon adopted son of Mangra Francis Oraon @ Hivatius Oraon - Appellant
Versus
Aruna Khakha, widow of Late Rajesh Oraon - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 06 of 1997 (R)
Decided on : 25-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of the adoption deed challenged. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. court heard arguments regarding the adoption deed's validity. (Para 3) |
| 3. defendant’s response and defense arguments. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. trial court settled issues on adoption law aspects. (Para 7) |
| 5. trial court findings on validity and limitation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. first appellate court's analysis and rulings. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 7. appellate court's reasoning lacked sufficient basis. (Para 13 , 18) |
| 8. court emphasized evidence and necessary parties' inclusion. (Para 19 , 24) |
| 9. evidence established the fraud was actionable within limits. (Para 25) |
| 10. fraud investigation regarding adoption deed. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. final decision superseding appellate court ruling. (Para 34 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
2. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 05.10.1996 and decree signed on 11.10.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 4/1993, whereby and whereunder, the appeal has been allowed and the judgment dated 30.11.1992 and decree signed on 07.12.1992 passed by learned Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No. 25/1989 has been set aside.
3. The present second appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 04.12.1997 on the following substantial questions of law:-
(I) Whether the judgment of the learned court of appeal below is vitiated due to not meeting all the points dealt with by the trial court?
(II) Whether in a case where the parties have led evidence although not pleaded in the pleading the same are required to be considered by the court and the findings given by the court below otherwise are bad in law?
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this second appeal is that original plaintiff Mangra Francis Oraon filed the Title Suit No. 25 of 1989 for declaration of registered Adoption (Godnama) Deed dated 11.02.1974 executed by Mangra Francis Oraon (original plaintiff) in favour of Rajesh Oraon (original defendant) as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is alleged that in the month of February, 1988, the plaintiff wanted to take out deed from the Registry Office, then the Deed Writer told him that the adoption has been executed in favour of defendant no. 1 namely, Rajesh Oraon. The plaintiff applied for the copy of the adoption deed and the said Godnama was cancelled by Cancellation Deed No. IV 9 dated 14.03.1988. It is alleged that the original plaintiff has executed the aforesaid registered Godnama (Adoption) Deed in favour of his own bhagina Zerom Oraon because he was issueless and his bhagina was looking after him and assisting in cultivation of field, but the defendant no. 1 in league of his father Alfons Oraon, who works as a Deed Writer changed the name of Zerom Oraon in place of adopted son and inserted the name of defendant no. 1 by cutting the name over the original Adoption Deed. The plaintiff after coming to know about the said fraud wanted to get away his landed property to his bhagina and originally adopted son Zerom Oraon and sought permission from the competent authority vide Permission Case No. 272/1988-89, but that was rejected on 24.02.1989 on account of execution of alleged forged and tampered adoption deed in favour of defendant no. 1. Therefore, the alleged Adoption Deed, which has been tampered by practicing fraud by defendant no. 1, is liable to be declared null and void document. The cause of action arose on 11.02.1974, when the alleged forged document was executed, later on 14.03.1988 and 24.02.1989 when the cancellation deed was executed by the plaintiff and rejection of application for permission.
5. The contesting defendant no. 1 appeared and filed his written statement taking plea that the suit is not maintainable in present form, barred by law of limitation, acquiescence and estoppel, barred by non- joinder of nec
Fraud in the alteration of an adoption deed justifies a declaration of nullity; suit filed within the limitation period after discovery of fraud is valid.
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....
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 quality of evidence is more important than the quantity, and witnesses must be given an opportunity to explain any doubts raised about their statements.
[The validity of an adoption deed requires adherence to legal formalities, including proper ceremonies, and knowledge of such deeds impacts the limitation period for challenging them.]
The validity of an adoption must be established by evidence of actual giving and taking of the child, with presumption favoring registered Adoption Deeds unless convincingly rebutted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the adoption deed and the plaintiff's lack of locus standi to question the adoption.
The validity of an adoption deed under Hindu law requires compliance with statutory provisions, and presumptions regarding registered deeds are rebuttable.
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish valid adoption as per statutory requirements; registered deeds are rebuttable and do not eliminate the need for actual proof.
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
