SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

) Sh. Anil Yadav vs ) Ms. Parul Yadav @ Parul Kharbanda on 17 January, 2019

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh