The validity of an adoption requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, including the consent of the biological mother, and such conditions were not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. The counsel for rival parties are in agreement that these writ petitions could be decided without exchange of pleadings since entire pleadings are on record and that matter involve mainly legal issues.

2. Both these writ petitions are arising out of a dispute amongst family members with regard to a registered adoption deed, an unregistered Will as well as compromise entered between parties before Consolidation Authorities.

3. It is not in dispute that land in dispute belongs to Brij Nandan, who had two daughters, namely, Triveni and Rama Devi. Triveni has four sons including Tek Chand, whereas Rama Devi has three sons. An adoption deed was registered to the effect that Brij Nandan has adopted Tek Chand, i.e. his daughter’s (Triveni’s) i.e. his grand son.

4. During consolidation proceedings rival objections were filed which were decided by the Consolidation Officer by an order dated 19.03.2014 whereby adoption deed as well as Will were held to be not proved and on basis of a compromise between parties shares were allotted that Rama Devi has relinquished her rights. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:

(Emphasis Supplied)

5. The matter went to Appellate Authority where Will as well as adoption deed was disproved as well as a subsequent compromise entered between parties was also disputed. Order passed by Consolidation Officer was interfered to the extent that shares were allotted between two daughters and their legal heir though Rama Devi (other daughter) has not filed an appeal but she was also granted share on basis of inheritance and being daughter of Brij Nandan. Relevant part of order dated 31.08.2019 is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. Matter thereafter went to Revisional Authority, who upheld the findings returned by Settlement Officer of Consolidation by an order dated 25.07.2023. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

(Emphasis Supplied)

7. Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vaibhav Shandilya, Advocate appearing for petitioners in Writ (B) No. 3822 of 2023, has submitted that process of adoption was conducted in accordance with law and all requisite process was followed, therefore, only on a ground that deed was subsequently registered as well as that it was not signed by natural mother, the adoption could not be doubted. He placed reliance on relevant provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”). It is also submitted that findings returned that there was no custom to adopt daughter’s son in Bundelkhand region was not based on any documentary evidence either placed before Revisional Authority or before this Court.

8. Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gulrez Khan, Advocate for petitioners in Writ (B) No. 3867 of 2023, has submitted that since adoption deed was disbelieved and Triveni biological mother of Tekchand herself challenged the adoption deed in a Civil Court as well as that other sister has not approached the Appellate Authority, therefore, Appellate Authority under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”) within its limited jurisdiction could not grant a relief which was not sought. It has no power to mould the relief. Therefore, share granted in favour of other sister, Rama Devi was beyond jurisdiction as well as that compromise which was signed by parties was wrongly rejected.

9. Above submissions of learned Senior Advocates were vehemently opposed by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh and Sri Sandeep Kumar, Advocates f