The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the adoption deed and the consequences of the adoptive father's renunciation, as determined by Sections 11, 15, and 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

1. Consolidation proceedings were commenced in Village Sarhariya, Pargana Khareed, District Ballia in the year 1975. In the basic year name of Mahadeo (Respondent-5) and Bholla were recorded in revenue records on land in dispute. Original petitioner filed objection before Consolidation Officer on the ground that she has half share in Khatas No. 9 and 38 of Village Sarhariya and in Khata No. 53 of Village Dadar and the same may be separated also. Other objections were filed by Respondent-4, Yogendra that he was duly adopted by Bhola who later on become Sanyasi.

2. Consolidation Officer, Ballia vide order dated 04.01.1977 rejected objections filed by original petitioner and allowed objection filed by Respondent-4. It was held that Bhola has adopted Respondent-4 and further that later on Bhola become Sanyasi. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter :

3. The above referred order was challenged by way of filing three appeals and the same were allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ballia vide order dated 26.08.1978 and the relevant part of order is reproduced as under :

4. The above order was challenged by way of filing three revisions before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and all revisions were allowed by means of impugned order dated 16.12.1976. It was held that Respondent-4 was the adopted son of Bhola, who became Sanyasi in the year 1973. Relevant part of order is reproduced as under :

5. Sri Ashutosh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lallan Prasad Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, has submitted that without any valid ceremony of adoption, it cannot be proved, even there was a registered adoption deed. Deputy Director of Consolidation has returned an incorrect finding that Bhola had become Sanyasi as the same is not proved by any evidence and, therefore, when Bhola was alive Respondent-4 has no right to claim mutation in his name. Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed in its duty in not adverting to the factum of compromise filed before Consolidation Officer which was by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the evidence on record and ignored the material documents available on record. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on agreement dated 16.12.1976 that only 1/4 share comes to Bhola which can only devolve to Respondent-4, i.e., Yogendra. The registered adoption deed dated 26.02.1965 was cancelled by Bhola subsequently by way of a notary affidavit dated 27.11.1976.

6. Per contra, Sri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents and Sri Shivam Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for contesting-respondents, have supported the impugned order that adoption deed was a registered document, therefore, there is a presumption in terms of Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”). Learned counsel for contesting-respondents submitted that alleged agreement dated 16.12.1976 has not even referred about any adoption deed and its effect, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that alleged other agreement dated 12.07.1945 was rightly rejected since on the face of it, the same was outcome of a fraud. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of Section 15 of Act, 1956, a valid adoption cannot be cancelled. Counsel also referred the finding that Bhola has himself made a statement that he has become a Sanyasi.

7. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on Supreme Court’s judgment in Laxmibai (Dead) through L.Rs. and others vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through L.Rs. and others, (2013) 4 SCC 97; Jai Singh vs. Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC 634; Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) through LR. Sadhna Rai vs. Rajinder Singh and others, (2006) 5 SCC 566; and, Trinity Infraventures Ltd. and others vs. M.S. Murthy and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the materi