Registered adoption deeds are presumed valid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, impacting eligibility for compassionate appointment, irrespective of the adoptee's age at registration.

JUDGMENT :

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Shraddha Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. appearing for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to consider his case for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules in accordance with the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Inspector General (Stamp & Registration), Lucknow.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 19158 (S/S) of 2017 (Ankit Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was decided vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2017, wherein a direction was issued to the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) to examine the issue.

4. It is submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), vide order dated 04.07.2018, has upheld the validity of the adoption deed of the petitioner. Thus, it is prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention and submitted that on the date of registration of the adoption deed, i.e., 15.05.2014, the petitioner was a major and, therefore, his case could not be considered under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956").

6. Perused the record.

7. Although, considering the peculiar circumstances under which the petitioner's adoption was not in accordance with law, the direction for compassionate appointment was earlier refused, however, a direction was issued to the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) to examine the issue. Relevant paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 18.09.2017 are extracted hereinbelow:-

"3. Since the petitioner's adoption is not in accordance with law, as such no direction can be issued for grant of compassionate appointment, as is prayed in this matter. The order of Deputy Director (Administration) dated 21st June, 2017, therefore, does not require any interference and the challenge laid to the order fails.

4. A direction, however, is issued to the I.G. (Registration & Stamps) to examine the issue as to how a document of 1997 has been entertained for registration in 2014, without any orders passed by the competent court and appropriate steps, as may be required to be drawn to deal with the situation, shall be undertaken, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the I.G. (Registration &

Stamps), within a week from today."

8. In compliance of the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Court earlier, the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps), vide order dated 04.07.2018, has upheld the validity of the adoption deed. The said order is on record as Annexure No. 18 to the petition. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while recalling the earlier order dated 11.03.2024 vide order dated 21.08.2025, has also noticed that the adoption deed has been held to be valid by the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps).

9. It has further been observed that since the present petition has been filed in terms of the order dated 04.07.2018, it constitutes a fresh cause of action and, therefore, the principle of res judicata would not apply, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daryao vs. State of U.P. , AIR 1961 SC 1457.

10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prema Gopal vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. (Special Leave t