The right to sue in an adoption-related matter is contingent upon establishing the death or presumption of death of the adoptive parent within the relevant time frame, and the presumption of validity accorded to registered adoption deeds under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, can only be rebutted by substantial evidence.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs. Baru and Rulha filed a suit for cancellation of registered adoption-deed dated 19-5-1977 executed by Yadram in favour of Sadhu, defendant No. 3, aged about 8 years on the date of execution with other consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid adoption deed being illegal, null and void. Relevant pedigree has been set up in the plaint. Tej Pal, one of the defendants, was living in village and was visiting Yadram frequently. He used to administer liquor to him. Yadram indulged in bad habits. It was alleged that Tej pal in collusion with Hriday Ram and Sube Ram obtained fictitious adoption-deed from Yad Ram. On the strength of adoption-deed Tej Pal took possession over the house of Yadram and also sold his movable properties. Whereabouts of Yadram thereafter was not known. It was apprehended that Yadram was either abducted or murdered. First information report was lodged with the police and case was registered against Tej Pal. The plaintiffs are cousin brothers of Yadram. They claimed to be reversioners and heirs of Yadram. It was alleged that Yadram was a man of unsound mind and no ceremony of adoption took place at the time of adoption.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested on the ground that ceremonies were performed at the time of adoption and that the adoption deed is valid and legal. Yadram was on inimical terms with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs wanted to grab the property of Yadram. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to sue.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit and cancelled the adoption-deed and also granted consequential reliefs. An appeal was preferred which was allowed and the judgment and decree of that trial Court were set aside. It is, therefore, this second appeal.

( 5 ) AT the time of admission of the second appeal only two questions were formulated, which are as under: (i) Whether the appellant had a right to sue? (ii) Whether the actual caremony of giving and taking had not been proved in accordance with law?

( 6 ) NONE appeared from the side of the respondents.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants was heard and record was perused.

( 8 ) THE first question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants had right to sue. For determining this question certain dates are material. The suit was filed on 31-1-1978. The deed of adoption was executed and registered on 19-5-1977. Evidently, the lower appellate Court rightly observed that the appellants are cousins of Yadram. Yadram is executant of the adoption-deed. The lower appellate Court has, therefore, rightly observed that according to Section 171 (f) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act the plaintiffs-appellants could not be the heirs of Yadram. However, according to him under Section 171 (r) of the said Act the appellants being cousins of Yadram would become heirs of Yadram only when the death of Yadram is established. On the point of death of Yadram both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that it is not proved that Yadram died. Likewise. both the Courts below gave concurrent findings that presumption about the death of Yadram could not be drawn because it was not proved that for more than seven years before institution of the suit Yadram was not heard of by the plaintiffs or by near relations. It is also in evidence that an attempt was made to implicate Tej Pal, father of the adopted child, Sadhu, in a abduction case under Section 364, I. P. C. Ultimately, Tej Pal was acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 358 of 1978, State v. Tej Pal, under Section 364, I. P. C. by VIth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Abduction was not established nor it was established that Yadram was done to death. As stated earlier, adoption deed was executed in May, 1977. The suit, on the other hand, was filed on 31-1-1978 and at that time seven years period had not completed, hence, presumption of death of Yadram was not rightly drawn by the two