SURTI GUPTA Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition for compensation at the instance of the appellant as a minor was dismissed on the ground that the adoption, that she pleaded in support of her status as a lawful heir to the deceased, could not be true, since the adoption deed did not contain any recital as to the reasons for the adoption. The Tribunal, while dismissing also observed that the adoption was alleged to have taken place when the petitioner was less than 5 years of age, but the deed of adoption had been brought about only 8 years after the adoption. The appeal is filed contending that the deceased was a spinster and the appellant had been adopted by the necessary religious ceremonies and "given in" adoption by the biological/natural parents through S.R. Aggarwal and Smt. Suraksha Gupta. The deed of adoption, which was registered subsequently, was actually executed by the biological parents of the appellant as co-executants with the deceased and witnessed by two persons. The appellant would also contend that she had obtained a succession certificate and all the terminal benefits arising out of the death of her adoptive mother had been given to her by the employer of the deceased.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the reasoning of the Tribunal and states that the adoption deed itself did not bring about the adoption and there was no reason for not registering adoption immediately if it was true. The fact, that the document was executed nearly 8 years after the alleged adoption, according to him, proved that the document could not be relied on for finding the validity of the alleged adoption.

(3.) I have gone through the recitals of the registered adoption deed. The document records the fact of adoption as having been given to her by the adoptive parent as per the ceremonies and also records the fact that ever since the said adoption, the appellant has been residing with the deceased and perceived by all the members of the public as her own child. This document is not merely an unilateral declaration by the deceased but the biological parents have actually joined as co-executants and stood by the assertions of the deceased through the document. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides for two modes of securing a valid adoption: one, adoption through a registered instrument and two, by the customary mode, however both requiring the act of giving by the parents or guardian in favour of the adoptive parent. The other conditions of valid adoption, which are set out in the Act, are not necessary to be stated here. Adoption through a registered instrument is only one of the modes of adoption and it is not compulsory. If the registered instrument itself brings out the fact of adoption as having been taken and the natural biological parents have also joined in the instrument, there cannot be any doubt about the factum of adoption itself. This document must be seen in the context of the evidence given on the side of the appellant, namely, the fact that she had claimed as a beneficiary for all the terminal benefits and what was accrued to the estate of the deceased from the employer. She had also produced a succession certificate, though in this case succession certificate itself may not be necessary.