An adoption deed, once registered, is presumed valid under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act unless disproved, and courts must provide reasons for any conclusions drawn against its validity.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shiv Kumar Mishra and Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent No.1 and Sri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under :-

"(i) to issue writ of certiorari quashing order Annexure No.1 dated 8.12.96 passed by opposite party No. 4 which is perverse order and has

been passed having no primary and secondary evidence on record.

(ii) to issue writ of Mandamus directing opposite parties No. 1 to 3 not to

interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, the land in dispute.

(iii) to issue of writ of certiorari quashing Anexure No.2 passed by opp. party No. 5 which is illegal and to set aside order Annexures No. 1 and 2 and to confirm the order Annexure No. 3 passed by trial Court after examining the primary and secondary evidence on record.

(iv) ..."

3. Factual matrix of the case is that agricultural land of gata No. 3/0.2870 Hectare situate in Village Surjana Khurd, 52/0.4700 Hectare situate in Village Gharua, 142/1.5500 Hectare, 152/468/0.1090 Hectare, 152/0.2800 Hectare, 156/0.4820 Hectare, 163/0.2100 Hectare situate in Village Sarai Jagna, Tehsil of all villages Kaiserganj, District Bahraich was ancestral land of petitioner. Gayadeen has three sons namely Samay Deen, Narain, Ram Asrey.

4. Since Ram Asray was issueless and as such when the petitioner was minor of 4 years old, he was adopted by Ram Asrey after necessary Hindu rituals and customs from their natural father and mother Sri Samay Deen and Smt. Dhanpata and an adoption deed was duly executed and registered on 8.2.1982.

5. After death of Sri Ram Asrey son of Gaya Deen, petitioner succeeded all the movable and immovable properties including the share of his adoptive father Sri Ram Asrey in the agricultural land as per aforesaid adoption and as such a mutation application on behalf of petitioner through his natural father was filed. An objection against the mutation application was filed by father of opposite party nos. 1/1 and 1/2 on 15.7.1987.

6. The original adoption deed was filed on behalf of petitioner and same got proved alongwith possession of the petitioner upon the land in dispute by examining Smt. Dhanpata, natural mother and marginal witnesses Ganga Ram son of Sanehi alongwith Brijlal son of Madho, Village Pradhan Jagdev Singh son of Raghuraj Singh and Shiv Sahay (the Priest who carried out the rituals of adoption) and thereby case of petitioner for mutation was proved. On behalf of objector opposite party no. 1 (deceased) got himself examined and also examined his witnesses Jogi son of Parmeshwar and Ayodhva Prasad son of Ram Asrey.

7. By finding the adoption deed and possession of the petitioner proved and and by finding that objector could not be able to rebut the evidences adduced on behalf of petitioner and also could not be able to prove his possession upon the share in the land left behind by Ram Asrey son of Gaya Deen, the Naib Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, District Bahraich passed an order of mutation in favour of petitioner in respect of land in dispute as stated aforesaid and situated in 3 different villages on 18.8.1992.

8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Kaiserganj allowed the 3 appeals filed by opposite party No.1 through a common judgment and order by ignoring the findings recorded by the mutation court and the evidence on record that too by giving quite perverse finding and thereby the order of mutation dated 18.08.1992 was set aside