Shri Sahib Singh vs Ms. Arvinder Kaur and Others

J.R. Midha, J.

I.A. No. 15524/2008 and I.A. No..../2008 (not numbered)

The Plaintiff has filed this suit for partition, mandatory injunction, declaration and rendition of accounts in respect of the estate of Late Amarjeet Singh. Along with the suit, the Plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 15524/2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and I.A. No..../2008 (not numbered) under Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The brief facts of this case are as under

2.1. The Plaintiff was born on 21st October, 1984. Late Amarjeet Singh and Arvinder Kaur (Defendant No. 1) are the natural parents of the Plaintiff whereas Jagbir Singh (Defendant No. 5) and Ravinder Kaur are the adoptive parents of the Plaintiff.

2.2. On 1st December, 1984, the natural parents, namely, Late Amarjeet Singh and Arvinder Kaur (Defendant No. 1) gave the Plaintiff in adoption to Jagbir Singh (Defendant No. 5) and Ravinder Kaur (adoptive parents).

2.3. According to the Plaintiff, a memorandum of settlement was executed between the parties on 1st November, 1988 in which it was agreed between the natural and adoptive parents that if any child is borne out of the wedlock of the adoptive parents, then the adoptive parents would cancel the adoption and hand over the custody of the Plaintiff to the natural parents.

2.4. The Plaintiff''s case is that a male child was born out of the wedlock of the adoptive parents on 4th April, 1990 and, therefore, the adoption deed was cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 11th August, 1991.

2.5. The Plaintiff is claiming the partition, injunction, declaration and rendition of accounts in respect of the estate of his natural father.

The learned Counsel for Defendants No. 1 to 4 submits that the adoption of the Plaintiff is absolute in law and the Plaintiff is deemed to be a child of his adoptive parents for all intents and purposes with effect from the date of his adoption and all ties of the Plaintiff with the natural parents were severed and the adoption cannot be cancelled either by the adoptive parents or the Plaintiff and, therefore, the Plaintiff has no right to seek any relief on the basis of cancellation of the adoption.

The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the adoption dated 1st December, 1984 is void ab initio as the same was conditional. It is further submitted that even if the adoption was valid, the same was lawfully cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 11th August, 1991 on the ground that the adoptive parents were blessed with a son on 4th April, 1990.

Two questions arise for consideration in the present case:

(i) Whether there was a valid adoption of the Plaintiff on 1st December, 1984.

(ii) Whether there was a valid cancellation of the adoption on 11th August, 1991.

The Plaintiff has admitted the adoption dated 1st December, 1984 in paras 5 and 6 of the plaint. However, the objection to the validity of the adoption has been raised for the first time in the replication. This objection is prima facie unsustainable inasmuch the condition in the adoption deed dated 1st December, 1984 is contrary to law and it would not invalidate the valid adoption.

The next question which arises for consideration is whether a valid adoption can be cancelled by the adoptive and natural parents of the Plaintiff. The law in this regard is well settled by Sections 12 and 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in adoptive family. Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that no adoption can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth. The Act has made no provision for cancellation of adoption which becomes absolute and irrevocable as a result of Section 15 of the Act.

In view of the Plaintiff''s admission of adoption in the plaint and the legal bar to the revocation of the adoption under Sections 12 and 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, this Court is of the view that there is no prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to injunction or appointment of a receiver.

Both these applications are dismissed. However, it is made clear that nothing herein stated shall be considered as the expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

CS(OS) No. 2622/2008

The parties were directed to file their respective original documents within four weeks on 9th September, 2009. However, the same have not been filed. Let the same be filed within two weeks.

List for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on 20th December, 2010 and for framing of issues before Court on 6th January, 2011.