RAUSHAN DEVI Vs. RAMJI SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the plaintiff the judgment/order of the first appellate Court as confirmed by the High Court is under challenge. The appellant filed the suit seeking a declaration that the deed of adoption executed by her husband defendant No. 3, on 6th of July, 1982 in favour of defendant No. 2 was void. The gist of her case was that defendant No. 3 was a man of weak intellect. He executed the deed of adoption under pressure from his brother defendant No. 1, who is the natural father of alleged adopted son, defendant No. 2, without understanding the contents of the document and without realising the implications of the same. It was the further case of the plaintiff that she had not given her consent for the alleged adoption and that there was no giving and taking ceremony at the time of the alleged adoption. Indeed the school records continued to carry the name of the natural father of the defendant No. 2. He continued to live in the house of his natural father even after the so called adoption ceremony. She also pleaded that having realised his mistake, defendant No. 3 executed the deed of cancellation dated 13th August, 1982. Defendant No. 3 supported the case of the plaintiff.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 who contested the suit denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. His case was that there was a valid adoption of his son, the defendant No. 2, by defendant No. 3 with the consent of the plaintiff. In the ceremony held on 5th July, 1982 in presence of the priest giving and taking of the boy by him to the defendant No. 3 took place. In token of the adoption, the deed was executed on the very next day, 6th July, 1982. According to the defendant No. 1 the deed of cancellation of the adoption alleged to have been executed on 13th August, 1982 does not affect the validity of the adoption and the status of the adopted son.

(3.) The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence on record, accepted the case of the plaintiff and held that there was no valid adoption since the consent of the plaintiff had not been taken and the deed of cancellation was executed shortly after the date of the alleged adoption.