Suit No. 609/17 Page 1 of 10
IN THE COURT OF DR. JAGMINDER SINGH
JSCC-cum-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
cum-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 609/17
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Anil Yadav,
S/o Sh. Shishu Pal Singh Yadav,
R/o H. No.170, Chatarbhuj Marg,
Kapashera, Delhi-110037,
2) Sh. Sunil Yadav,
S/o Sh. Shishu Pal Singh Yadav,
R/o H. No.192, Kapashera,
New Delhi-110037.
……..Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbanda,
D/o Sh. Ravinder Singh Yadav,
(Natural Father),
Presently R/o 1218 Summit Avenue,
Minneapolis MN 55403, USA,
(Through her special Attorney)
Sh. D.V.S. Yadav S/o Sh. R.M. Yadav,
R/o B-4/201, 3rd Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
2) Sh. Shishu Pal Singh Yadav,
S/o Sh. Mool Chand Yadav,
R/o Village PO Kapashera,
New Delhi-110037,
3) Sh. Ravinder Singh Yadav,
S/o Sh. Bhup Yadav,
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 2 of 10
4) Smt. Anita Yadav,
W/o Sh. Ravinder Singh Yadav,
Both defendants no. 3 4 are R/o
E-7, Bhim Nagri DDA Flats,
Safdarjung Development Area,
New Delhi-110016.
……Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 29.04.2017
Final Arguments Heard on : 17.01.2019
Date of Judgment : 17.01.2019
Final Order : DECREED
SUIT FOR DECLARATION CANCELLATION OF
ADOPTION DEED
JUDGMENT :-
1.
This is a suit for declaration cancellation of
adoption deed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the
present suit as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiffs
are the real sons of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 4
are the brother-in-law and sister of the plaintiffs respectively.
Defendant no.1 is the real/natural daughter of defendant
no.3 and 4 and alleged adopted daughter of defendant no.2.
On 14.02.1985 when defendant no.1 was approximately 07
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 3 of 10
years of age, defendant no.2 to 4 alongwith wife of
defendant no.2, namely, Smt. Asharfi Yadav (now deceased
died on 05.08.2007) entered into an adoption deed dated
14.02.1985, duly registered as document no.583 in
additional book no. 3, Volume no. 302 on pages 143-144 in
the Office of Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi on
14.02.1985 itself, whereby, defendant no. 3 to 4 agreed to
give their daughter, namely, Parul Yadav (defendant no.1) to
defendant no.2 and his wife.
3. The plaintiff treated defendant no.1 as sister
because she started residing and living with them. In March
2017 when defendant no.2 was searching for papers in his
house, he showed the above said adoption deed to the
plaintiffs. Thereafter, when the plaintiffs were in the process
of clarification of their mother’s land / property in their
names they showed the copy of the adoption deed to the
concerned Revenue Officials and some legal practitioners
and at that time they came to know that there are certain
legal defects and invalidities in the adoption deed. It was
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 4 of 10
claimed that the adoption deed is in violation Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and hence the same is
ultra vires and bad in law. Therefore, the plaintiffs are
seeking for a decree of declaration in their favour and
against the defendants declaring the aforesaid registered
adoption deed as null and void. Hence, the present suit is
filed before the Court. This Court is having jurisdiction for
trial of this suit.
4. On the suit of the plaintiff, summons were issued
to the defendants. No written statement has been filed by
the defendants no.1 2 opposing the plaintiff’s suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed :-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree in his
favour for declaring the registered Adoption Deed dated
14.02.1985 as null and void, as prayed?(OPP).
(ii) Relief.
6. After framing of issues, matter was fixed for
plaintiff’s evidence and plaintiffs had examined two
witnesses in their evidence.
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 5 of 10
7. PW1 is Sh.Anil Kumar Yadav, who had tendered
his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in his evidence and had relied upon
the following documents :-
• Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of Aadhar card.
• Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) i.e. registered Adoption Deed dated
14.02.1985• Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) Birth certificate of Parul dated
20.07.1978.
• Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) i.e. Election ID card of Parul.
• Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) i.e. Copy of passport of Smt. Anita.
8. PW2 is Sh. Sunil Yadav who had tendered his
affidavit Ex.PW2/A in his evidence and he relied upon the
documents i.e. Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5 which were already
exhibited by PW1 and further relied upon the following
document:-
• Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) i.e. Copy of driving license.
9. No any other witness was examined by the
plaintiff and they closed their evidence vide separate
statement and matter was fixed for defendant’s evidence.
No witness was examined on behalf of any of the
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 6 of 10
defendants and vide separate statement, Ld. Counsel for
defendants had closed defendant’s evidence and the matter
was fixed for final arguments.
10. Final arguments heard on behalf of defendants.
No arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiffs today as
none is appearing on behalf of plaintiffs since last four
dates. However, on earlier dates, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs
prayed for decree of the suit. I have considered the
submissions of both parties and perused the documents and
evidence filed on record.
11. Issue no.(i) is that Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for a decree in his favour for declaring the registered
Adoption Deed dated 14.02.1985 as null and void, as
prayed?(OPP). Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiffs.
As per the averments mentioned in the plaint and the
evidence placed on record, at the time of adoption,
defendant no.2’s family consisted of his wife Smt. Asharfi
and three children i.e. plaintiff no.1 Sh. Anil Yadav (Son),
plaintiff no.2 Sh. Sunil Yadav (Son) and defendant no. 4
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 7 of 10
Smt.Anita Yadav (daughter). However, inspite of having a
real / natural daughter on 14.02.1985 the defendant no. 2 to
4 entered into an adoption deed whereby, defendant no. 3
and 4 agreed to give their daughter, Parul Yadav, (defendant
no. 1) to defendant no.2 and his wife Smt. Asharfi Devi. The
said adoption deed who placed on record during evidence
by PW1 as Ex.PW1/2.
12. It is the above mentioned adoption deed
Ex.PW1/2 that the plaintiffs pray to be declared null void
for being in violation of Section 11 (ii) of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. The relevant Section is reproduced
as below:
“11. Other conditions for a valid adoption – In
every adoption, the following conditions must be complied
with :-
(i) …………
(ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or
mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a
Hindu daughter or son’s daughter (whether by legitimate
blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of
adoption;
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 8 of 10
(iii) ……….
(iv) ……….
(v) ……….
(vi) ……….”
13. It is clear that for an adoption to be valid the
conditions laid down in Section 11 (ii) of The Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956 have to be fulfilled. Section 11
(ii) of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 clearly
states that in every adoption, if the adoption is of a
daughter, then the prospective adopted father or mother
must not have a Hindu daughter living at the time of
adoption. Any violation of the conditions laid down in
Section 11 will lead to adoption not being considered as a
valid adoption. In the present case, a perusal of the
affidavits placed on record by plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2
make it abundantly clear that at the time of adoption of
defendant no.1 by defendant no.2, defendant no.2 already
had a living daughter i.e. defendant no. 4. It is only the
daughter of defendant no. 4 that was adopted by defendant
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 9 of 10
no. 2. Thus, defendant no.2 adopted as daughter to the
daughter of his real/natural daughter which is a direct
violation of Section 11 (ii) of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. It is also pertinent to mention here
that the defendants have not placed on record any evidence
to rebutt the averments made or documents placed on
record by the plaintiffs. No defence evidence has been led
by them to show that the adoption deed Ex.PW1/2 is indeed
valid.
14. In view of the fact that the affidavits of plaintiffs
no.1 and 2 clearly shows that defendant no.2 already had a
daughter at the time of adoption and in absence of any
rebuttal by the defendants, the court is of the considered
opinion that the adoption deed Ex.PW1/2 dated 14.02.1985
is in violation of Section 11 (ii) of The Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 and hence the adoption is not valid.
Issue no.1 is therefore decided in favour of plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
15. Relief: Therefore, in view of aforesaid
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.
Suit No. 609/17 Page 10 of 10
discussion, the registered adoption deed Ex. PW1/2 dated
14.02.1985, duly registered as document no. 583 in
additional book no. 3, Volume no. 302 on pages 143-144 in
the Office of Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi is
hereby declared null void.
16. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
17. No order as to costs.
18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
19. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on this 17th day of January, 2019 by JAGMINDER
SINGH
JAGMINDER
Date:
SINGH 2019.01.17
16:16:59
+0530
(DR. JAGMINDER SINGH)
JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge,
Dwarka Courts : Delhi
Note: This judgment is having Ten pages and each
page is bearing my signatures.
(DR. JAGMINDER SINGH)
JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge,
Dwarka Courts : Delhi
Sh. Anil Yadav Anr. Vs. Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbands Ors.