The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid adoption deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the need for cogent evidence to disprove the factum of adoption, and the binding effect of previous judgments on the parties involved.

Alok Singh, J.

1. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1985 passed by the learned trial Court and judgment and decree dated 14.10.1986 passed by the learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge (IV), Faridabad. By the impugned judgments end decrees, both the Courts have dismissed the suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintif/appellant.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that one Nanuwa (deceased) son of Devi Sahai was the owner in possession of the land measuring 81 kanals 8 marks and other properties situated in the revenue estate of Village Badoli. Plaintiff claiming herself to be a daughter of Nanuwa (deceased) has filed suit against the defendants for declaration and possession alleging that adoption deed dated 7.6.1977 in favour of Bijender, and decree passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 257 of 18.7.1977 are illegal, null and void and outcome of the fraud and conspiracy and are not binding upon the plaintiff. It was contended by the plaintiff that Nanuwa (deceased), father of the plaintiff, was suffering from paralysis from last six years in life and was unable to move from his bed; defendant No. 2, Lakhmi Chand, who is the son of brother of late Nanuwa (cousin of the plaintiff) was having an eye over the property of Nanuwa (deceased) and with an ulterior motive to deprive the plaintiff to inherit the suit properties, obtained frivolous decree by playing misrepresentation and fraud, from the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Palwal on 26.7.1977; alleged adoption deed dated 7.6.1977 is also the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation.

3. Defendants contested the suit by refuting all the allegations made in the plaint. Both the defendants contend that defendant No. 1 was taken in adoption by Nanuwa (deceased) and thereafter adoption deed dated 7.6.1977 was executed and got registered by Nanuwa (deceased) and decree passed in Suit No. 257 dated 26.7.1977 is a valid decree.

4. Learned trial Court framed following issues:-

"1. Whether defendant No. 1 is the validly adopted son of deceased Nanuwa ? OPD.

2. Whether judgment and decree dated 26.7.1977 is illegal, null and void and in effective on the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside ? OPP.

3. Whether Smt. Sukho, plaintiff is the daughter of late Nanuwa son of Devi Sahai ? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to bring the present suit ? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.

6. Relief."

5. Learned trial Court found plaintiff to be a daughter of Nanuwa (deceased) while recording the finding on issue No. 3. However, suit of the plaintiff, present appellant, was dismissed by the learned trial Court saying defendant No. l.had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 440 against the Mohan and others in which also adoption deed in question came up for consideration and Civil Court therein has held that adoption deed was valid, hence, there is no need to take contrary view to the judgment passed by the Civil Court in the Suit No. 440 titled as Bijender v. Mohan and others.

6. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, first Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Both the Courts below have further held that registration of the alleged adoption deed dated 7.6.1977 is proved, hence, presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is in favour of the defendants.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In my view, following substantial questions of law are required to be formulated for the just and fair decision of the present appeal :-

1) As to whether Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act requires adoption deed to be a bilateral document? If yes, as to whether any acknowledgement by the alleged adoptive father would attract the presumption under Section 16 of the Act ?

2) As to whether alleged adoption is proved ?

3) As to whether decree passed by th