SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arundhati Kumari (Minor) vs . Union Of India & Anr. on 30 November, 2019

ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS SCJ 84818/16

CNR No.: DLST03­001666­2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR)
THROUGH SH. LALLAN RAM THAKUR
(NEXT FRIEND/ADOPTIVE FATHER)
R/O RZ­2802B/32,
TUGHLAQABAD EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI­110019 ….PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. UNION OF INDIA
(MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT)
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY,
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
SHASTRI BHAWAN,
DELHI­110001

2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
THROUGH ASSISTANT SECRETARY
PS, 1­2, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
I.P. EXTN., PATPARGANJ,
DELHI­110092

3. HAMDARD PUBLIC SCHOOL
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 1 of 10
ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

TALIMABAD, SANGAM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI­110080

4. SH. JHALLAN PRASAD
R/O­RZ­2802B/32,
TUGHLAQABAD EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI­110019 ….DEFENDANTS

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.09.2016
DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2019

JUDGMENT

1. The present suit has been filed by minor Ms. Arundhati Kumari,
through her next friend and father Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur. The plaintiff has
pleaded that her natural father i.e. defendant no.4 Sh. Jhallan Prasad (who
is the real brother of Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur) had given her in adoption to
Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and his wife Smt. Chandrawati when she was 1 ½
years of age.

2. The adopted father of plaintiff Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur got the
adoption deed dated 23.01.2015 registered at the office of sub­registrar,
district Balia, U.P. He also got advertisement published in newspaper to the
effect that plaintiff had been adopted by Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur. He also
got the said fact published in the Gazette notification dated 20.03.2015.

3. The fathers name of plaintiff in her school record and record of
CBSE continued to be recorded as sh. Jhallan Prasad instead of Sh. Lallan

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 2 of 10
ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

Ram Thakur. She applied to her school i.e. defendant no.3 for making
necessary changes. The officiating principal of defendant no.3 i.e. Hamdard
Public School forwarded the request of the adoptive father/next friend of
the plaintiff to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) defendant
no.2 vide letter dated 24.11.2015 Ref. no. IF/02N/2013/1094 alongwith
copies of Gazette of India and publication in newspaper for necessary
changes in records. However, the CBSE vide its letter dated 12.04.2016
disallowed the plaintiff’s request by giving following reasons:

“Subsequent to the amendment of Rule 69.1(i) of the Examination
Bye­Laws duly notified vide notification of the Board dated
25.06.2015, applications regarding the change in Candidate
Name/Parent Name/Surname/Guardian Name may be considered
only if the desired changes have been specifically admitted by the
Court of Law and notified in the Government Gazette before the
declaration/publication of the concerned examination result of the
candidate by the Board.

Since the application in respect of the candidate does not hold
the merit for consideration in conformity with the existing rules of
the Board, therefore, the request has not been allowed by the
Competent Authority.”

4. The letter of refusal dated 12.04.2016 issued by defendant
no.2/CBSE was without basis as the plaintiff had already got the fact of
such adoption published in the Gazette of India and newspaper publication.

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 3 of 10

ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

5. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed that a decree of declaration that Sh.
Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt. Chandrawati are the parents of plaintiff for all
purposes may be passed. She has also prayed that defendant no.2/CBSE be
directed to issue certificates and marksheets of class 10 th, 11th, and 12th with
the name of Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt. Chandrawati as her parents.

6. The summons of the suit were duly served upon all the defendants.
Defendants no.1, 3 and 4 did not file any written statement. The defendant
no.3 i.e. Sh. Jhallan Prasad gave a statement on 25.01.2017 that he does not
h ave objection if the name of Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur is replaced in place
of his name in the record of CBSE.

7. Defendant no.2/CBSE filed written statement and took plea that the
suit is not maintainable. The present suit is not covered under the
Examination Bye­laws of CBSE. Thus, prayed that the suit may be
dismissed.

8. The plaintiff filed replication to written statement of defendant
no.2/CBSE and reiterated the facts of the plaint.

9. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed vide
order dated 06.12.2017:

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 4 of 10
ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory
injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (b) and (c) of the
plaint? OPP
(3) Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by any law? OPD
(3) Relief.

10. The adoptive father/next friend of plaintiff stepped into the witness
box. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied
upon documents Ex.PW­1/1, Ex.PW1/2, Mark­B and Mark­C. The plaintiff
evidence was closed on 12.12.2018.

11. Defendant no.2/CBSE examined D2W1 Sh. Kailash Chand,
Assistant, MM Section, CBSE. He relied upon documents i.e Mark­A and
Ex.DW1/2 (colly.). Defendants’ evidence was closed on 22.10.2019.

12. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel for plaintiff as well as of
Ld. counsel for defendant no.2/CBSE. I have also gone through the
evidence on record very carefully. The issue­wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1:

13. The onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought
declaration that Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt. Chandrawati are the
adoptive parents of the plaintiff for all the purposes. The plaintiff had also

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 5 of 10
ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

impleaded her natural father Sh. Jhallan Prasad as defendant no.4. He did
not dispute the factum of adoption and also gave a statement in the court on
25.01.2017 that he has no objection if the decree is passed in favour of the
plaintiff. The only contesting defendant i.e. defendant no.2/CBSE has also
not disputed the afore­mentioned fact.

14. The plaintiff has also proved the certified copy of the adoption deed
Ex.PW1/1. As per said adoption deed, defendant no.4 had given the
plaintiff in adoption to Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt. Chandrawati.
Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and SectionMaintenance Act provides
presumption regarding registered adoption deed. It is reproduced below:

“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.”

15. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be
concluded that plaintiff has proved to the preponderance of probability that
she was adopted as a child by Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt.
Chandrawati respectively. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 6 of 10
ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.2:

16. The onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff. The case of plaintiff is
that plaintiff was adopted by Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur earlier, but the adopted
father subsequently got the gazette notification Ex.PW1/2 done on
20.03.2015 specifying that the plaintiff had been adopted by Sh. Lallan
Ram Thakur. Thereafter, the plaintiff completed her matriculation in May
2015. She moved an application upon which defendant no.3 i.e. Hamdard
Public School forwarded her request to defendant no.2/CBSE alongwith
copy of gazette notification and publication in newspaper, but the said
request was turned down.

17. Defendant no.3 Hamdard Public School has supported the case of the
plaintiff to the extent that the said documents were forwarded by it as
alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant no.2/CBSE has also not disputed the
afore­mentioned facts.

18. Defendant no.2 has opposed the case of plaintiff solely on the
assertion that the case of plaintiff is not covered under the examination bye­
laws of CBSE. Ld. counsel for plaintiff had argued that since the gazette
notification was done on 20.03.2015 therefore, the amendments in bye­laws
dated 25.06.2015 was not applicable. However, it is necessary to note that

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 7 of 10
ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

gazette notification by itself does not lead to application of bye­laws. The
application of afore­mentioned bye­laws of CBSE come into operation only
when the request is forwarded by the head of the institution. As per case of
plaintiff, defendant no.3/Hamdard Public School had forwarded her request
in November 2015 i.e. after the amendment in the bye­laws which was
brought about on 25.06.2015.

19. As per the amended bye­laws 69.1 (ii), application for correction in
the name of candidate/father’s/mother’s/guardian’s can be considered only
within one year of the date of declaration of result. The principal of the
school of plaintiff i.e. defendant no.3 had forwarded the request alongwith
all the necessary documents within one year from the date of declaration of
result.

20. The term ‘correction’ in the name of candidate/father’s/mother’s/
guardian’s includes not just the correction in the spellings etc of name, but
also in the name itself. The correction is to rectify the mistake and the
mistake can be of any nature or character.

21. As per case of plaintiff, she was earlier adopted by her adoptive
father Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur, but by mistake the name of her natural father
was retained in the school record and in the record of CBSE. Therefore, to
change the name of natural father by whom she had been legally adopted
will amount to correction of name of father.

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 8 of 10

ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

22. Since the plaintiff had taken the steps as per Rule 69.1 (ii), therefore,
CBSE is under obligation to make the correction in the name of parents of
the plaintiff in their record as Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt. Chandrawati
respectively.

23. The judgments so relied upon by Ld. counsel for defendant
no.2/CBSE are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present
case, the validity of the bye­laws is not in question. The only question
which was required to be addressed was the applicability of the bye­laws,
but the ratio of the said judgments so relied are not applicable to the present
case.

24. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against
the defendants.

ISSUE NO.3:

25. The onus to prove this issue was on defendant. In the written
statement of defendant no.2/CBSE, there is no averment that the suit is
barred. Secondly, no argument has been advanced on this issue by
defendant no.2. Moreover, in discussion of issue no.2, it has already been
held that the case of plaintiff is covered under the bye laws of CBSE.

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 9 of 10

ARUNDHATI KUMARI (MINOR) VS. UNION OF INDIA ANR.

26. Accordingly, this issue is also decided against the defendants.

RELIEF

27. In view of the discussion of issues no.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff
is decreed with costs. A decree of declaration is passed in favour of plaintiff
and Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt. Chandrawati are declared to be the
adoptive parents of the plaintiff Ms. Arundhati Kumari. The defendant
no.2/CBSE is also directed to issue certificates and mark­sheets of Class
10th, Class 11th and Class 12th of the plaintiff by correcting the name of her
parents as Sh. Lallan Ram Thakur and Smt. Chandrawati respectively by
making necessary changes in their record. Decree sheet be prepared. File be
consigned to record room after due compliance.

(Announced in the open (Sushant Changotra)
Court on 30.11.2019) SCJ (South), Saket Courts
Digitally signed
by SUSHANT New Delhi
SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
CHANGOTRA Date:
2019.12.02
15:17:39 +0530

CS SCJ 84818/16 Page 10 of 10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation