ORDER

1. One Smt Phulla, the widow of Chunnilal, filed a suit for partition in the year 1965 in the Court of Civil Judge, Nasirullahganj. During the pendency of the suit, she died and Laxmi Narayan, Respondent 1 hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent) filed an application in substitution claiming to be the legal heir of the aforesaid Smt Phulla on the basis of a registered deed of adoption dated 24-6-1967. It may be mentioned that Smt Phulla was the second wife of Chunnilal who had three sons from his first wife namely, Bhagchand, Harchand and Ram Charan. Bhagchand died in the year 1960. So far as the other two sons Harchand and Ram Charan are concerned, who shall be deemed to be the stepsons of Smt Phulla, they were impleaded as defendants in a suit aforesaid. They contested the claim of the respondent to be substituted in place of Smt Phulla. According to them, after the death of Smt Phulla they shall be the heirs and legal representatives of Smt Phulla as well. The trial court rejected the prayer for substitution made on behalf of the respondent. Against that a revision was filed before the High Court on behalf of the respondent. The High Court was of the opinion that on the basis of the deed of adoption the respondent can claim substitution in place of Smt Phulla. Against that order the present appeal has been filed.

2. Once the respondent filed an application for substitution and produced a registered deed of adoption, the trial court should have substituted him in place of Smt Phulla on being satisfied that the conditions of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 had been complied with. Section 16 of the Act reads 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."

3. In view of Section 16 aforesaid 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 persons mentioned therein, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the said Act unless and until it is disproved. According to us, it was not open to the defendants of the said suit for partition to collaterally challenge the said registered deed of partition. In view of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act it was open to them to disprove such deed of adoption but for that they had to take independent proceeding. The High Court was fully justified in directing that the respondent be substituted in place of Smt Phulla on the basis of the registered deed of adoption produced before the court.

4. Accordingly, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, we make it clear that any observation made by the High Court in respect of registered deed of adoption shall be deemed to be in connection with the petition for substitution only. It is unfortunate that a suit which was filed as early as in the year 1965 is still pending. We direct learned Subordinate Judge to dispose of the said suit as early as possible.