The validity of an adoption must establish consent of both natural parents, failing which the adoption may be considered invalid under Hindu law.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The appellant/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.24 of 09.08.1980 which was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.1986. Against the said judgment and decree dated 28.2.1986, two appeals were filed: 1) bearing Civil Appeal No.15/13 of 1986 titled as "Khushi Ram Vs. Satnarain" which was filed by the plaintiff; and 2) Civil Appeal No.55/13 of 1986 titled as "Satnarain Vs. Khushi Ram" which was filed by the defendant/respondent Satnarain. Vide common judgment and decree dated 09.02.1989, the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat has dismissed the appeal of plaintiff Khushi Ram; whereas the appeal of defendant Satnarain was allowed; and consequently, suit of plaintiff Khushi Ram was dismissed. Hence, present 2 second appeals.

2. Both the present appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they emanate from common judgment and decree of the learned Courts below; as also the facts and issues involved in both the second appeals are identical.

3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the "plaintiff" and the respondent as "the defendant". For the sake of convenience, the facts are being drawn from RSA-1060-1989 titled as "Khushi Ram Vs. Sat Narain" dated 19.04.1989.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant herein, had filed a suit seeking declaration that he being adopted son of deceased Chhelu is the Dholidhar of the suit land measuring 8 kanal 11 marlas as described in the plaint. It was pleaded in the plaint that Chhelu was issueless. As such, on 16.04.1969, he had adopted the plaintiff in the presence of the brotherhood in respect of which registered Adoption Deed was also executed. It was further pleaded that during the lifetime of Chhelu, his father and plaintiff used to cultivate the suit land though the Revenue Entries continued in the name of father of Chhelu. However, the defendant in connivance with Halqa Patwari got mutation of inheritance sanctioned in his favour by misrepresenting that he was adopted son of Chhelu; even though no adoption deed was produced by the defendant before the Revenue Authorities nor was any such executed by Chhelu in favour of defendant nor Chhelu had ever treated defendant as his adopted son. It was alleged that the defendant on the basis of mutation of inheritance sanctioned in his favour on 14.06.1979, wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land. Hence, present suit was filed on 9.8.1980.

5. The defendant contested the suit by denying that plaintiff was ever adopted by Chhelu. Specific stand of the defendant was that in actual fact, he/defendant was validly adopted by Chhelu vide registered Adoption Deed dated 7.1.1953. As such, Chhelu had been treating the defendant as his son since 07.01.1953. It was further alleged that plaintiff had no concern with or right in the suit property. Mutation of inheritance of late Chhelu was sanctioned in favour of defendant in respect of which even the appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed. Thus, defendant is owner in possession of the suit land as successor in interest of late Chhelu. Adoption Deed, if any, executed by plaintiff is outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

6. On the basis o