Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1221
2011 (3) PLR 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.N. MITTAL, J.
Haryana State and others - Appellants
Versus
Jai Deep - Respondent
RSA No.4633 of 2010 (O & M)
Decided on: 24.05.2011
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana for the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the respondent.
The legal evidence of adoption, including the succession certificate and unregistered adoption deed, was not sufficient to prove the plaintiff's adoption by Maman Ram.
Headnote:
Adoption - Compassionate Appointment - The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his adoption by Maman Ram, as the succession certificate and unregistered adoption deed were not sufficient evidence. The court also noted that the plaintiff was above the legal adoption age at the time of the alleged adoption, leading to the dismissal of the suit for compassionate appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed compassionate appointment as the adopted son of Maman Ram. The lower courts decreed the plaintiff's suit, but the defendants filed a second appeal, arguing against the adoption of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his adoption by Maman Ram and dismissed the suit for compassionate appointment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff could prove his adoption by Maman Ram to claim compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the succession certificate and unregistered adoption deed were not sufficient evidence to prove the adoption. Additionally, the plaintiff was above the legal adoption age at the time of the alleged adoption.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The court held that the plaintiff was not proved to be the adopted son of Maman Ram and dismissed the suit for compassionate appointment.
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) - Defendants-State of Haryana and others have filed the instant second appeal, having lost in both the Courts below. 2. Respondent-plaintiff-Jai Deep filed suit against defendants/appellants alleging that the plaintiff is adopted son of Maman Ram, who died in harness. The plaintiff accordingly claimed compassionate appointment.
2. Defendants denied the adoption of plaintiff by Maman Ram since deceased. Various other pleas were also raised.
3. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined Roop Chand, Clerk PW-1, who brought file of the succession petition which had been instituted by plaintiff Jai Deep against general public claiming succession certificate for the debts and liabilities of Maman Ram. Since the said petition was not contested by anybody, as no particular person was party to the said petition except general public, the same was allowed. Roop Chand proved various documents from the said file. Kishore Clerk as PW-2 proved documents from the service record of Maman Ram since deceased. The plaintiff himself appeared as PW-3 and broadly stated according to his version. On the other hand, defendants examined Rajbir Singh DW-1 Deputy Superintendent. He broadly stated according to defendants’ version.
6. Plaintiff’s case is based on succession certificate and unregistered adoption deed dated 17.01.2003. As regards succession certificate, defendants herein were not made party to the succession petition. Consequently, merely on the basis of order passed in the succession petition, it cannot be said that plaintiff is adopted son of Maman Ram. On the basis of succession certificate, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to receive debts due to Maman Ram, but the plaintiff cannot be held to be adopted son of Maman Ram for the purpose of the instant suit.
7. As regards adoption deed, the same is unregistered one. Consequently, presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is not attached to the unregistered adoption deed. Moreover, the plaintiff has not proved the alleged adoption deed by examining any witness thereof. Roop Chand, Clerk PW-1 proved certified copy of the adoption deed from the file of succession petition. However, Roop Chand, Clerk could not prove execution of the adoption deed by Maman Ram. Execution of the adoption deed by Maman Ram could be proved by examining some witness of the adoption deed, but the plaintiff has not examined any witness of the adoption deed to prove its execution.
8. Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the appellants contended that affidavits of Mangat Ram, Sher Singh and Krishan produced in succession case have been proved and these affidavits prove execution of the adoption deed by Maman Ram. The contention is untenable. Deponents of the aforesaid affidavits have not been examined as witnesses in the instant suit and consequently, defendants had no opportunity for cross-examining them. Their affidavits tendered in the succession case cannot be read in evidence in the instant suit without examination of the deponents as witnesses in the instant suit.
9. It is thus apparent that execution of alleged adoption deed by Maman Ram has not been proved. Plaintiff has also not examined any witness of the factum of adoption in the instant suit. Self serving statement of the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove the alleged adoption. There is practically no legal evidence to prove alleged adoption of plaintiff by Maman Ram.
10. It would also not be out of place to notice here that the adoption deed was executed just 12 days before the d
