BEERU Vs. AAM JANATA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for a declaration that he is adopted son of one Jagdish Saran, son of Mangal Das. According to the plaintiff's case, his natural parents Hari Ram and Smt. Usha Devi gave the plaintiff in adoption to Jagdish Saran while he was about 5 years of age in 1990. Admittedly, no document evidencing such adoption or deed of adoption so executed was brought on record. The suit was itself filed in the year 2006, after Jagdish Saran had expired. According to the plaint allegation, the need for filing of the suit arose as Jagdish Saran was an employee of the North Central Railway and in order to consider plaintiff's case for compassionate appointment, the Authorities had insisted upon a decree of competent civil court evidencing and acknowledging such adoption before the plaintiff's candidature could be considered and that is why the suit was filed. The suit was contested by Smt. Pushpa Devi, opposite party No. 3, who was stated to be wife of late Jagdish Saran by denying the plaint allegations and it was stated that the plaintiff belongs to a different caste and was not related to the deceased and no adoption had actually taken place of the plaintiff. It was further stated that such suit had been filed only in order to secure an appointment with the railways, whereas at no point of time, the plaintiff had been taken in adoption. Various other grounds were urged to contest the plaintiff's case.

(2.) Both the courts below have concurrently rejected the plaintiff's case after recording a finding that Smt. Pushpa Devi was the legally wedded wife of late Jagdish Saran and neither any consent of Smt. Pushpa Devi as was required under proviso to section-7 of the Act existed nor there was any registered document evidencing such adoption. Courts below further disbelieved the plaintiff's case upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, noticing various inconsistencies in the stand of the plaintiff witnesses as also the statement of the plaintiff himself. Aggrieved by the decisions of both the courts below, plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and after having perused the material and documents brought on record, this Court finds that the findings returned by the courts below on the issue of adoption are concluded purely by findings of fact, which are not required to be reappraised by this Court in the instant appeal under section 100 C.P.C. So far as the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are concerned, section 7 thereof is relevant for the present purpose, which is reproduced:-