The validity of an adoption deed under Hindu law requires compliance with statutory provisions, and presumptions regarding registered deeds are rebuttable.

1. Appellant is the plaintiff who has preferred the appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the first court of appeal in Title Appeal No.21 of 1994.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their placement in the suit and will include their legal representatives substituted from time - to - time.

3. The plaintiff Jiro Mahto filed the suit for declaration that the deed of adoption No.48 of 1964 was illegal, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. Case of the plaintiff in brief is that her husband Ganpat Mahto died in or about 1955 leaving behind the plaintiff as his widow and Rukmini Devi as daughter. His entire interest devolved on them. The plaintiff was residing in husband's house and is in possession of the suit property. In July 1987, defendant Nos.1 and 2 came to the village and Defendant No. 1 made a declaration that he had been adopted by the original plaintiff Jiro Mahto. On this, when she made enquiry she found that a forged and fabricated deed of adoption was created. There was actual giving and taking and the formalities and ceremonies of adoption were also not performed. Plaintiff was in need of money for the marriage of his daughter Rukmini Devi and for which the defendants had agreed to advance money on creation of a Bhugutbandha deed and on this pretext the deed of adoption was created. Choudhary Mahto was aged about 45 years so at the time of creation of the said deed he was aged about 22 years. He was married prior to 1964 and he had never lived with the plaintiff nor he was treated as adopted son.

5. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 namely, Choudhary Mahto and Harihar Mahto, have filed the joint written statement. Case of the defendants is that Ganpat Mahto had married several times and one of his wife was Meghiya Mahtwain. Rukmini Devi was daughter of Meghiya Mahtwain from her first husband Koka Mahto and she was not daughter of Ganpat Mahto. Ganpat Mahto died in the year 1949 issue less. In para 5, it is contended that defendant No. 1 was taken in adoption by the plaintiff in 1964 in the ceremony on the eve of Basant Panchami and later a deed of registration was effected on 12.2.1964. After the deed of adoption plaintiff has been living with defendant No.1 as mother and son. After the death of the plaintiff Jiro Mahto, Rukmini Devi has been substituted in place as plaintiff who has been living in that house. The defendant No.1 got a new house constructed and for last 15 of 16 years had been living in the old house with his wife and children. Defendant No.1 was in possession of other properties of Ganpat Mahto. On 12.2.1964, Jiro Mahtawain adopted Choudhary Mahto by a registered deed of adoption. Chaudhary Mahto was aged about 12 years on the date of adoption and 38 years at the time of filing of the written statement. After his adoption he became Ramlakhan Mahto. After the adoption defendant No.1 had ceased to have any relation with the defendant No. 2. It is averred that Chaudhary Mahto was not married prior to 1964 but was married in April 1964 that is after adoption he was given in marriage by the plaintiff as per the custom of the prevalent child marriage at the time.

6. The other defendants who are Defendant No.3 to 6 been impleaded by order dated 31.3.93. They have filed their joint written statement and contested the suit. It is pleaded that Rukmini Devi who has been substituted as plaintiff was the daughter of Maghiya Mahtawain from her first marriage with Koka Mahto and as such was not the descendant of Ganpat Mahto. Ganpat Mahto died in the year 1971 leaving behind these defendants and Jiro Mahatawain the sixth wife of Ganpat Mahto. Jiro Mahatawain was not the heir and descendant a