A registered adoption deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, carries a statutory presumption of validity. Unless rebutted by evidence, it is sufficient for claiming benefits, and a separate declaratory decree from a court is not mandatory.

Order

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 375/2023 (Manish Chouhan vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby the learned Tribunal, while dismissing the Original Application, directed the petitioner to obtain a declaratory decree from a competent court with regard to the adoption deed before claiming service-related benefits.

2. The petitioner's grandfather Shri Mohan Lal, had two sons, Shri Kailash Chandra & Shri Ganpat Lal, and two daughters Saraswati Devi & Pushpa Devi and they lived in joint family. Shri Kailash Chandra, having no issue, adopted the present petitioner in the year 1998, when the petitioner was approximately ten years of age, in accordance with the customs prevailing in the Sikligan Lohar Hindu community.

3. At the relevant time, Shri Kailash Chandra was employed under the respondents as a permanent employee in the peon cadre, serving as General Assistant in the Railway Store. Though the adoption was effected in 1998, the adoption deed was not registered contemporaneously. Subsequently, on 28.07.2014, the adoption deed was formally registered before the Sub-Registrar IV, Jodhpur, expressly recording that the adoption had taken place about sixteen years earlier.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the record wherein the petitioner's marriage documents, including the marriage card and registration certificate, reflect Shri Kailash Chandra Chouhan as his father. The adoptive father also submitted applications dated 08.07.2017 and 16.04.2018 requesting that the adoption deed be taken on record in the service register. Before any further action could be taken, Shri Kailash Chandra Chouhan expired on 03.03.2023, prior to attaining superannuation. Thereafter, the respondents insisted upon production of a decree from a competent court to validate the adoption for the purpose of extending service benefits. Despite representations, including a communication from the petitioner's adoptive mother dated 26.06.2023, the respondents did not accede to the request, leading to the filing of O.A. No. 375/2023, which came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1956') which read as follows:-

“16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.―Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.”

6. He further submits that no objection has been raised by any person disputing the adoption, nor is there any legal impediment under Section 10 of the Act of 1956 to such adoption. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Prema Gopal vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors." in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.14886/2024 as also the judgment passed by Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of "Union of India & Anr. vs. Sukhpreet Kaur & Anr." in CWP No.28074/2024 decided on 13.02.2025.

6.1. Learned counsel thus submits that there was no requirement of seeking any declaration with regard to the genuineness of the adoption deed and simply based upon the adoption deed, he was entitled for seeking benefits of compassionate appointment and other retiral benefits post death of Kailash Chandra Chouhan as also his wife i.e. mother of the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that certain discrepancies in the record necessitate verification through a decree of a