A suit for declaration of adoption cannot be withdrawn due to formal defects when the core grievance is not addressed, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in legal claims.

Judgment

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

Respondent No.1 Virender Singh filed a suit on 07.04.2012, for the grant of decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2. In para 3 of the plaint, respondent No.1 (plaintiff before the trial Court) asserts that Rishal Singh was unmarried and issueless, therefore, he adopted the plaintiff (Virender Singh) on 03.03.1988, as per their local customs. In para 4 of the plaint, it was pleaded that after the adoption ceremony was performed on 03.03.1988, the plaintiff started treating Rishal Singh as his father. Thereafter, on 22.07.1996, the adoption deed was executed before the Sub Registrar. The prayer clause of the plaint reads as under:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree of declaration may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff, by declaring:- (1) Declaring the Adoption deed registered on 22.7.1996 to be valid, legal and binding upon the defendants (ii) Declaring the Plaintiff as adopted son of Rishal Singh s/o Kishana by virtue of Adoption deed registered at serial no.11 dated 22.07.1996 before Sub-registrar Badhada, and declaring the Adoption-Deed to be valid, legal and binding upon the defendants; (iii) for declaring the mutation no.815 to be valid, effective and binding upon the defendants; (iv) for declaring the plaintiff to be the legal heir/successor and owner in possession of the respective (1/4th) share by inheritance, which was originally inherited by Rishal Singh S/o Kishna and further a decree of permanent injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from alienating or taking advantage of the revenue records which have been entered/reflecting as per natural succession.”

3. Both the parties have led their evidence. In the year 2018, the plaintiff filed an application for permission to withdraw the suit with the liberty to file a fresh one. It was asserted in the application that due to some technical defects, the plaintiff does not want to proceed with the suit. However, the aforesaid technical defects were not specified in the application.

4. In the first round, the application was allowed. However, in the revision petition, the aforesaid order was set aside with the direction to the trial Court to pass a fresh order in terms of the Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). In the second round, the Court has allowed the application with the following observations:-

“11. From the pleadings of the plaint, it is transpired that the actual grievance of the plaintiff is to get declared his adoption dated 03.03.1988 as valid and the declaration of adoption deed dated 22.07.1996, which corroborates the alleged adoption dated 03.03.1988, is just an ancilillary relief. The pleadings of the plaintiff shows that plaintiff is establishing his locus-standi to file the present suit on the basis of his alleged adoption effected on 03.03.1988, however, in the prayer clause, he has sought relief by virtue of adoption deed dated 22.07.1996. Nowhere the plaintiff has prayed to get his real grievance addressed, i.e. to get declared his adoption (dated 03.03.1988) legal.”

5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) has already pleaded that the adoption ceremony took place on 03.03.1988. Subsequently, a registered adoption deed was executed on 22.07.1996. The learned counsel submits that the suit does not suffer from any formal defect.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) submits that the suit suffers from a formal defect as the declaration with regard to the genuineness of adoption that took place on 03.03.1988, has not been sought.

8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties. Undoubtedly, the Court