A registered adoption deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 creates a presumption of valid adoption, and the onus is on the party challenging the adoption to plead and prove the grounds for such challenge.

1. This second appeal has been filed by Amar Singh defendant against the judgement and decree of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, affirming those of the trial Court by which the suit of the plaintiff for possession by pre-emption had been decreed.

2. Briefly, the facts are that Harkesh respondent No.2 sold land measuring 78 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in village Mandi to Amar Singh defendant for a consideration of Rs. 26,000 vide sale deed dt. 26th May, 1966. Tej Ram plaintiff filed a suit for possession by pre-emption on the ground that he was father s brother s son of Harkesh vendor. He took some other pleas which are not relevant for determination of the appeal.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-vendee who controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that Harkesh was not the adopted son of Smt. Hanso as no adoption took place. It was next averred that he was the son of Phalel son of Baru with whom the plaintiff was not connected. He, therefore, pleaded that the plaintiff had no superior right of pre-emption.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge framed seven issues. In appeal, however, the following two issues are relevant :-

1. Whether the plaintiff has a superior right of pre-emption?

2. Whether the vendor Harkesh is not the adopted son of Smt. Hanso and can the defendant No.1 challenge the same? He held that Harkesh was the adopted son of Smt. Hanso and the plaintiff was his father s brother s son. Consequently, he passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff on payment of Rs. 27,832.50. Amar Singh defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal, who affirmed the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. He has come up in second appeal to this Court.

5. The first contention of Mr. Jawanda is that the original registered deed of adoption has not been produced and the plaintiff-respondent did not make out a case for leading secondary evidence. Therefore, the adoption deed cannot be taken into consideration for determining the issues.

6. I regret my inability to accept the contention. The objection regarding the mode of proof should have been taken at the time when the document was exhibited. In case the document is exhibited without any such objection, a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to raise an objection regarding it for the first time in appeal. In the aforesaid view, I am fortified by the observations in Gopal Das V/s. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83, S. Anup Singh V/s. Sardarni Harbans Kaur, (1957) 59 Pun LR 650 : (AIR 1958 Punj 116) and P.C. Purushothama Reddiar V/s. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608. In Gopal Das s case (supra), it was held that where the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court of appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof. This case was followed by this Court in Anup Singh s case (supra) and similar observations were made. The above view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar s case (supra).

7. The next contention of Mr. Jawanda is that Harkesh was more than 15 years of age and was married at the time of adoption. Under S.10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) such a person could not be adopted unless custom applicable to the parties allows that. He urges that custom should be pleaded and proved which has not been done in the present case.

8. I have heard the learned counsel at considerable length and given thoughtful consideration to their arguments. In the present case, Harkesh was adopted by a registered adoption deed dt. 12th Nov., 1963. S.16 of the Act reads as follows :-