The court affirmed that for a valid adoption, the consent of the adopting father's wife and proof of the ceremony of giving and taking are mandatory under the Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Somitra Anand, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for contesting respondents.

2. Present proceedings are arising out of objections filed under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Petitioner filed objection on basis of a registered adoption deed dated 12.05.1967, whereas other two objections were filed on basis of an unregistered will and on basis of inheritance.

3. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 25.04.1977 rejected objections filed by the petitioner and held that adoption proceedings were not legal and were not in accordance with law so much as that adoption deed was not signed by adopted mother, therefore, a mandatory condition was not complied with. Similarly, objections on basis of an unregistered will was also rejected. Objection on basis of inheritance was only accepted. Findings returned in regard to adoption are reproduced hereinafter:

4. In aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner as well as other filed two appeals before Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Appeal of petitioner was allowed by an order dated 10.11.1982, that registered adoption deed was valid document and adoption was carried out by a due legal process. A registered document carries presumption unless rebutted. The relevant part thereof so far as adoption is concerned is reproduced hereinafter:

5. The contesting respondents thereafter filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and by order dated 02.07.1983, which was allowed and order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside and claim of petitioner on basis of registered adoption deed was rejected. Wife of Bhuneshwar Singh (adopted father) has not signed on adoption deed. The findings returned that adoption deed was not proved. The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

6. The aforesaid order is challenged at the behest of petitioner in present writ petition. This Court by an order dated 26.08.1983 granted stay, however, by an order dated 25.09.1992, stay application was rejected since no one has appeared on behalf of petitioner and according to further order-sheet, it appears that interim order was later on granted.

7. Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that adoption was carried out in a due process and witnesses have specifically stated that procedure was followed and since it was a registered document as such it has a presumption of its correctness. He further submitted that Board of Revenue has erroneously emphasised that photograph of Brahma Shankar Singh during the adoption was not possible since on that date he was on duty in West Bengal, however, a certificate from concerned Police Authority shows that he was on leave on particular date on a special ground.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that adopted father and mother of petitioner were not alive during objections and biological father of petitioner has recorded his statement that in his presence adoption proceedings were carried out, with consent of adopted father and mother in presence of number of persons and after Puja and Ceremony, a Bhoj was also organized.

9. Per contra, Sri Somitra Anand learned counsel for contesting respondents submitted that adoption deed has to be proved in terms of provisions provided under the Maintenance and Adoption Act 1956 and consent of wife of a male who adopts a child was mandatory as well as there must be proof of ceremony of actual giving and taking adoption. However, in the present case, signature of adopted mother was neither on adoption deed nor she was present at the time of its registration. Adopted father has given his consent while sitting in a 'Palki' at the time of registration.

10. Learned counsel further referred findings returned by Board of Revenue that on basis of evidence of biological father, adoption procedure could not be proved. In photographs of ceremon