LAWS(CHH)-2009-6-16

P. SHANKAR RAO Vs. PUBLIC IN GENERAL

Decided On June 22, 2009
P. SHANKAR RAO Appellant
V/S
PUBLIC IN GENERAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 20-4-2001 passed by the District Judge, Durg, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1/2000, affirming the order dismissing the application for issuance of succession certificate under Section 374 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Durg vide order dated 27-8-99 in Succession Case No. 133/98.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the present applicant has filed an application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground of being adopted son of Late Ramlu who was working in South Eastern Railway at BMY Charoda. After providing opportunity of hearing, the trial Court has dismissed the application and the same was affirmed in appeal on the ground that the present applicant has failed to establish the fact that he is the adopted son of Late Ramlu.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant who is a Hindu has filed certified copy of the registered adoption deed (Annexure A-1) which is a public document under Clause (2) of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act, 1872'). The public officer is under obligation under Section 76 of the Act, 1872 to issue certified copy and by production of certified copy, contents of public document may be proved under Section 77 of the Act, 1872. LEARNED Counsel submits that document for adoption of a son is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(3) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act, 1908'). Registering authority is competent to issue certified copy of the document under Section 57(1) of the Act, 1908 and such certified copy is admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original document under Section 57(5) of the Act, 1908. LEARNED Counsel further submits that the applicant has proved essential ingredients for valid presumption of adoption under Section 16 of the Act, 1956, but the Court has not considered the same.