[2026:RJ-JD:12659]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 124/2025

1. LRs Of Mohini, D/o Birbal Ram, R/o Naggi, Tehsil Srikaranpur, Dist. Sriganganagar.

1/1. Indraj S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 12 Gd, Tehsil Nai Mandi, Ghadsana, Dist. Sriganganagar.

1/2. Arvind Kumar S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o

12 Gd, Tehsil Nai Mandi, Ghadsana, Dist. Sriganganagar.

2. Vimla Devi D/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Naggi, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, Presently R/o Village Mirjewala, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

3. Parmila D/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Naggi, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, Presently R/o Village Mirjewala, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rajeshpal Alias Rajesh Kumar S/o Devi Lal, R/o Village Naggi, Tehsil Srikaranpur, Dist. Sriganganagar.

2. Vidhya Devi W/o Devi Lal, R/o Village Naggi, Tehsil Srikaranpur, Dist. Sriganganagar.

3. Devi Lal S/o Mamraj, R/o Village Naggi, Tehsil Srikaranpur, Dist. Sriganganagar.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Dr. RDSS Kharlia For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

17/03/2026

1. The present second appeal has been filed against judgment & decree dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sriganganagar in Civil Appeal No.02/2022 (CIS No.02/2022) whereby judgment & decree dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court')

in Civil Case No.15/2003 (CIS No.592/2015), stood affirmed.

2. Vide judgment & decree dated 22.02.2022, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for declaration of adoption deed dated 15.03.1999 to be void, as filed by the plaintiffs.

3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the adoption in question itself was contrary to law in terms of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956') as admittedly, defendant No.1 was 22 years of age on the date of the alleged adoption. As per Section 10 of the Act of 1956, no person above the age of 15 years could have been taken in adoption. Therefore, both the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit as filed by the plaintiffs.

4. Counsel raised the second ground to the effect that the defendants failed to prove the adoption deed in so far as all the defendant witnesses made contrary statements regarding the period when defendant No.1 was adopted. Meaning thereby, there was no adoption prior to the year 1999.

5. Heard the Counsel. Perused the record, in particular the adoption deed (Exhibit-1).

6. A bare perusal of the said document reveals that it contains a specific stipulation to the effect that defendant No.1 was taken in adoption by the father of the plaintiffs, in his childhood itself. It is only for the documentation purposes that the deed was executed in the year 1999.

7. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the complete evidence as available on record recorded a specific finding that defendant No.1 was adopted before 15 years of age as per the existing custom and further that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the adoption deed was forged or fabricated.

8. So far as the ground raised by counsel for the appellants to the effect that the defendants failed to prove the adoption deed is concerned, firstly, the burden to prove that the adoption deed was fraudulent or forged was on the plaintiffs. Secondly, the documents exhibited on record whereby Birbal Ram, the father of the plaintiffs himself filed applications before different authorities, averring that defendant No.1 was adopted by him and hence, the document be transferred in his name, are sufficient to hold that the burden was very well discharged by the defendants.

9. After perusing the complete record, this Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as recorded by both the Courts are in total consonance with the evid