IMPORTANT POINT
An adoption deed executed prior to mandatory registration requirements is valid and does not necessitate stamping or registration for property rights.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Panna Lal Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned Revisional order dated 27.1.1982 passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. Deputy Director Consolidation, the impugned appellate order dated 17.7.1979 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the judgment and order dated 3.10.1978 passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. Consolidation Officer.

3. During the pendency of present writ petition, the petitioner Munder had expired and in his place, his legal heirs have been substituted and they will be addressed as petitioners. Similarly, after the demise of respondent No. 4, Bhonu, his legal heirs have been substituted and they will be addressed as respondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that Raghunandan had five sons namely Abhilakh, Kabbil, Badri, Cheekhur and Ram Narayan. Abhilakh was issueless, Kabbil has three sons namely Bhonu, Ram Saran and Ram Samujh. Bhonu is respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition. Badri has one son Munder i.e. the petitioner in the present writ petition. For the rest, it is not necessary to mention as they are not party to the dispute.

5. It is further submitted that after the demise of Abhilakh (issueless), the uncle of the petitioner, the petitioner has a right in the property of Abhilakh.

6. It is further submitted that the land/property of Abhilakh was inherited by Bhonu alleging himself as an adopted son of Abhilakh by adoption deed dated 15.5.1931.

7. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1953) when the village had come under Consolidation in the year 1972 by moving an application on 17.7.1978 and raised an objection regarding the validity of the adoption deed dated 15.5.1931 on two counts, firstly, the adoption deed was not stamped and secondly it was not registered. The said objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by its judgment and order dated 3.10.1978, against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 17.7.1979. Against the appellate order, the petitioner preferred a revision which was also dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.1982, hence, the present writ petition has been preferred.

8. It is further submitted that the adoption deed is mandatorily required to be registered for the reason that by the said adoption deed, the immovable property was going to be transferred in favour of respondent No. 4 Bhonu which is of the value of more than 100 Rupees, as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in which it has been provided that in the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Here, the transaction by the adoption deed is more than hundred rupees. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Raghavamma and another v. A. Chenchamma and another, Civil Appeal No. 165 of 1961, reported in 1964 AIR (SC) 136.

9. It is further submitted that as per Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that documents of which registration is compulsory and sub-section 1(b) of Section 17, provides that other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent to or in immovable property and Sub-Section provides any other instrument required by law for the time being in force, to be registered and the effect of non-registration has been provided under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908,