JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Sarvjeet Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

2. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) An appropriate order or direction may be passed setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6 Lucknow in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 18/16 (Dheer Singh Vs. Estate of Late Chunni Lal and another) as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition.

(ii) An appropriate order or direction may be passed in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and disburse entire dues of late Chunni Lal to the petitioner and also give him employment on compassionate grounds under the Dying in Harness Rules as the petitioner was made nominee in service record of late Chunni Lal."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that one Sri Chunni Lal was an employee in the Irrigation Department and had no heirs of his own, his wife having left him. Sri Chunni Lal adopted the petitioner by means of registered adoption deed dated 23.10.1996, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition. It is contended that during his life time, Sri Chunni Lal had give an application in the office of the respondent no. 2 on 20.03.1990 whereby the petitioner was nominated in the service record as his nominee. Sri Chunni Lal died in harness on 06.10.1997. In January, 1998, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1925") for being issued a succession certificate. The said case was decided ex-parte vide order dated 27.08.1998 in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the petition.

4. The respondent no. 2 filed an application for setting the order dated 27.08.1998 and the said case was registered as Case No. 45 of 1998. Both the cases i.e one filed by the petitioner as well as the other filed by the respondent no. 2 i.e the application for recall which was registered as Case No. 45 of 1998 were clubbed together. The application for recall was filed by Dheer Singh, the respondent no. 2 on the ground that it was him who was validly adopted as son vide registered adoption deed dated 26.11.2015 by Sri Chunni Lal, which is prior to the adoption deed of the petitioner. Certain other grounds were also taken. Both the cases were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2015, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 2 filed an appeal under Section 384 of the Act, 1925. The Court vide order dated 19.11.2018 has allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent no. 2 and has directed for issue of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Act, 1925 in favour of the respondent no. 2. Simultaneously, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate Court has patently erred in law in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2. He contends that the appellate Court has wrongly proceeded to allow the appeal and pass order in favour of respondent no. 2 by considering the registered adoption deed dated 06.11.1995 of the respondent no. 2 inasmuch as once the petitioner was shown as a nominee in the service record of Sri Chunni Lal it is apparent that it was he who was the validly adopted son of the deceased Sri Chunni Lal which fact has not been considered by the learned Court below in its proper perspective while allowing the appeal.

7. It is also argued that the mandatory condition of Section 11 (vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956") provides that the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken