Padum Singh vs Smt. Janaki Bai

Page 1 of 7
(SA No.491/2016)

CGHC010202912016 2026:CGHC:46552
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
Date:
2026.11.05
10:45:29
+0530
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 491 of 2016
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 24-6-2016 in Civil Appeal
No.2A/2012 of the Additional District Judge, Kondagaon}
Padum Singh, S/o Pursati, aged about 50 years, R/o Sonabal, Tahsil
and District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
(Plaintiff)
... Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Janaki Bai, Wd/o Late Soman Singh;
2. Kamali, D/o Late Soman Singh, aged about 25 years;
3. Kamla, D/o Late Soman Singh, aged about 23 years;
4. Dayabati, D/o Late Soman Singh, aged about 19 years;
5.
Aasmati, D/o Late Soman Singh, aged about 19 years;
All are R/o Village Sonabal, Tahsil and District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh
6.
Smt. Osmati, Wd/o Late Soman Singh, R/o Khotalpara, Tahsil
Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
7. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur,
District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
(Defendants)
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin
Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Tarakeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer.
Single Bench: -
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, J.

Page 2 of 7
(SA No.491/2016)
Judgment On Board
03/11/2026
1. The appellant herein/plaintiff has preferred the present second
appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 24-6-2016
passed by the learned First Appellate Court – Additional District
Judge, Kondagaon {Presiding Officer – Mr. Jaideep Garg} in Civil
Appeal No.2A/2012 (Padum Singh v. Smt. Janaki Bai and six
others), whereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 28-10-
2010 passed by the learned Trial Court – Civil Judge Class-II,
Bastar at Kondagaon {Presiding Officer – Mr. Harish Kumar
Awasthi} in Civil Suit No.44A/2006 (Padum Singh v. Smt. Janaki
Bai and six others), the first appeal preferred by the appellant/
plaintiff was dismissed.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of
admission . Perused the memorandum of appeal, the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, as well as
the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
-:Proceedings before Trial Court:-
3. Appellant/plaintiff Padum Singh instituted a suit against his
deceased biological brother, Soman Singh , through his two wives
and children, seeking a declaration of title, permanent injunction
restraining interference with his possession, and correction of the
revenue records by recording his name in respect of 2.45 acres of
land situated at Village Sonabal , Tehsil Kondagaon , District

Page 3 of 7
(SA No.491/2016)
Bastar , which originally stood in the name of their father,
“ Pursati” . The suit was founded on the plea that Soman Singh had
been adopted by their paternal uncle, Sitaram , and, therefore, had
no right or share in the property of their biological father, Pursati .
4.
Upon conclusion of the trial and after appreciating the evidence
adduced by the parties, the Trial Court, applying the provisions of
Sections 6 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956 held that the alleged adoption of Soman Singh had not been
proved in accordance with law and, accordingly, dismissed the suit
instituted by the appellant/plaintiff.
- :Judgment and Finding of First Appellate Court:-
5.
The appellant/plaintiff preferred a first appeal challenging the
aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. However,
by the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal, holding that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were
justified, as the parties are Hindus and the alleged adoption of
Soman Singh was required to be proved in accordance with the
provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Since
the alleged adoption was not established in accordance with the
statutory requirements, no interference with the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court was warranted.
-:Argument of Appellant/Plaintiff on admission :-
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, while addressing
arguments on admission, contended that both the Courts below

Page 4 of 7
(SA No.491/2016)
failed to examine the material effect of the alleged adoption of
Soman Singh by his paternal uncle, Sitaram, particularly its impact
on his succession rights in the properties of both his adoptive father,
Sitaram , and biological father, Pursati . It was submitted that
Soman Singh was claiming a share in the properties of both, but
this aspect was not considered by either Court below, giving rise to
substantial questions of law warranting admission of the second
appeal.
-:Finding of this Court on Admission:-
7.
Considered the submissions and perused the record.
8. The scope of interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure is well settled. In Santosh Hazari v.
Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 , the Supreme Court held
that the existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non
for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC and is a
condition precedent for entertaining a second appeal.
9.
The distinction between a question of law and a substantial question
of law was further explained in Hero Vinoth (Minor) v.
Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545, wherein it was held that a
substantial question of law must materially affect the rights of the
parties and cannot be equated with a mere question of fact or the
application of a settled proposition of law to the facts of a case. The
Supreme Court, in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala, (2020) 19
SCC 57, reiterated that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction

Page 5 of 7
(SA No.491/2016)
under Section 100 of the CPC, cannot act as a first appellate Court by
reappreciating the evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of
fact merely because another view is possible.
10.
More recently, in U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda &
Others, (2025) 4 SCC 215, the Supreme Court reiterated that
admission of a second appeal is permissible only upon the Court's
satisfaction that the case involves a substantial question of law; in the
absence of such a question, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
11. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court has
examined the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the
proposed substantial questions of law in the context of the findings
recorded by both the Courts below. In the present case, it emerges
from the record of the Trial Court that both the parties belong to the
Kshatriya community and are governed by Hindu law. It is also an
admitted position that Sitaram , the paternal uncle of the
appellant/plaintiff and Soman Singh, had three sons.
12. In such circumstances, reference to Sections 6 and 11 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, appears relevant, the relevant
provision whereof reads as under:
“ 6. Requisites of a valid adoption .—No adoption
shall be valid unless—
(i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the
right, to take in adoption;
(ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do
so;

Page 6 of 7
(SA No.491/2016)
(iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in
adoption; and
(iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other
conditions mentioned in this Chapter.”
11. Other conditions for a valid adoption .—In
every adoption, the following conditions must be
complied with:—
(i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or
mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a
Hindu son, son's son or son's son's son (whether by
legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at
the time of adoption;
(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;
(iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be
adopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least
twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted;
(iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be
adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least
twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted;
(v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously
by two or more persons;
(vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and
taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned
or under their authority with intent to transfer the child
from the family of its birth or in the case of an
abandoned child or child whose parentage is not
known, from the place or family where it has been
brought up to the family of its adoption:
Provided that the performance of datta homam
shall not be essential to the validity of adoption.”
13. A conjoint reading of Sections 6 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956, shows that the Trial Court record contains no

Page 7 of 7
(SA No.491/2016)
evidence establishing who had given Soman Singh in adoption,
whether such person was legally competent to give him in adoption,
or whether the person taking him in adoption was legally competent
to do so.
14.
Further, in view of the provisions of Section 11, the alleged adoption
also cannot be accepted, particularly when Sitaram already had
three sons at the relevant time. The statutory requirements
governing a valid adoption have, therefore, not been established.
Consequently, both the Courts below were justified in declining to
accept the appellant/plaintiff's plea regarding the alleged adoption of
Soman Singh, and no error can be attributed to their concurrent
findings on this aspect.
15.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the
existence of any substantial question of law warranting admission of
the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below do not suffer from any
perversity or legal infirmity calling for interference. Accordingly, the
second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as
to costs.
16. Let a decree be drawn accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sushma Sawant)
JUDGE
Soma