KAMALA JENA vs SUB REGISTRAR, SIMULIA, BALASORE
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 23100 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010517832026
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution
of India)
Kamala Jena ....... Petitioner
- Versus-
Sub Registrar, Simulia ....... Opposite Parties
& Anr.
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. D. P Mohanty, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty
[Standing Counsel]
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
06.11.2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner seeks to challenge the
order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore, in Registration
Appeal No.05 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred against
the Refusal Order No.01 of 2025 dated 26.09.2025 passed
by the Sub-Registrar, Simulia, refusing registration of Deed
of Acknowledgement of Adoption presented by the petitioner
Page 1 of 10
and her husband, was dismissed and the order of refusal
was confirmed.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that one
Purastam Jena and his wife Kamala Jena, the natural
parents of Kamala Kanta Mandal, born on 08.04.1992, gave
him in adoption to Bhaskar Mandal and his wife Laxmi
Mandal on 25.03.2001, when he was about nine years old,
pursuant to an adoption ceremony performed at the
residence of the adoptive parents. As no deed of adoption
was executed at the relevant time, a Deed of
Acknowledgement of Adoption was subsequently executed
on 24.09.2025 by the natural parents, Laxmi Mandal, wife of
late Bhaskar Mandal and Kamala Kanta Mandal,
acknowledging the said adoption and was presented before
the Sub-Registrar, Simulia, for registration. However, the
Sub-Registrar, vide Refusal Order No.01 of 2025 dated
26.09.2025, refused registration on the grounds of non-
establishment of any custom permitting adoption beyond
fifteen years of age, continued reflection of the natural
father's name in the school leaving certificate despite the
Page 2 of 10
adoption in the year 2001, subsequent modification of the
Aadhaar card on 10.06.2014, when the adoptee was about
twenty-two years old and absence of contemporaneous
documentary evidence. Being aggrieved by the said order,
Purastam Jena preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the
Registration Act, 1908, before the Additional District
Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore, but died during
its pendency on 16.12.2025. The appellate authority, vide
order dated 30.04.2026, dismissed the appeal, affirming the
refusal of registration on the basis of the aforesaid
discrepancies and the absence of independent witnesses or
endorsement of co-villagers establishing the adoption
ceremony. Said orders are impugned in the present writ
petition.
3. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel for the
State.
4. Mr. D.P. Mohanty would argue that the Sub-
Registrar, while exercising jurisdiction under the
Registration Act, 1908, is not vested with the power to
Page 3 of 10
adjudicate on the validity or genuineness of the adoption
acknowledged in the document presented for registration. He
submits that the document in question is not a deed of
adoption effecting a fresh adoption, but a Deed of
Acknowledgement of Adoption executed to acknowledge an
adoption given effect to on 25.03.2001, when the adoptee
was about nine years of age. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar
was required to examine whether the document fulfilled the
statutory requirements for registration and could not have
embarked on an enquiry into the genuineness of the
adoption by scrutinising the school leaving certificate, the
subsequent modification of the Aadhaar card, the absence of
contemporaneous documentary evidence or the availability
of independent witnesses to the adoption ceremony. He
further argues that the registering authority has no
jurisdiction to determine whether the adoption was legally
valid by evaluating the surrounding circumstances or the
sufficiency of the evidence relating to the ceremony of giving
and taking in adoption. Such questions, including the
applicability of the age restriction under Section 10(iv) of the
Page 4 of 10
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the
existence of any custom permitting adoption beyond the
prescribed age are matters which may fall for adjudication
before the competent civil court.
5. Per contra, Mr. G. Mohanty submits that the
Sub-Registrar has rightly refused registration of the
document after examination of the materials produced by
the parties. He argues that the adoption having taken place
in the year 2001, the parties were required to establish that
the adoptee was below fifteen years of age at the relevant
time. However, the school leaving certificate continued to
reflect the name of his natural father even after the
adoption, while the Aadhaar card was modified to reflect the
name of the adoptive father only on 10.06.2014, when the
adoptee had already attained the age of about twenty-two
years. He further submits that no contemporaneous
documentary evidence was produced to establish the
adoption and the absence of independent witnesses or any
endorsement by co-villagers regarding the ceremony of
giving and taking in adoption further cast doubt on the
Page 5 of 10
claim. In such circumstances, the Sub-Registrar was
justified in refusing registration and the appellate authority,
having considered the materials on record, rightly affirmed
the said decision.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and upon consideration of the rival submissions, it would be
apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
1
of K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar .
7. The principle emanating from the decision is
that the jurisdiction of the registering authority is confined
to the examination of the document presented for
registration and compliance with the requirements
prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908. The registering
authority is not vested with the jurisdiction of a civil court
and cannot assume an adjudicatory role in determining
disputed questions of right, title or legal entitlement, which
are otherwise required to be determined by a competent
court of law. Once the parties appear before the registering
authority, admit execution and comply with the statutory
1
(2026) 2 SCC 696
Page 6 of 10
and procedural requirements, the registering authority
cannot undertake an adjudication beyond the powers
conferred on it by the Act. The registration of a document,
by itself, does not operate as an adjudication of the rights or
liabilities of the parties flowing therefrom.
8. Applying the aforesaid decision to the facts of
the present case, it is evident that the document presented
before the Sub-Registrar was a Deed of Acknowledgement of
Adoption, purportedly acknowledging an adoption said to
have been performed on 25.03.2001. The document was not
intended to effect a fresh adoption on the date of its
execution, but was executed to record and acknowledge
adoption which had taken place more than two decades
earlier. Therefore, the question which fell for consideration
before the registering authority was whether the document
was otherwise admissible for registration in accordance with
the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and not whether
the adoption acknowledged therein had been established in
accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956.
Page 7 of 10
9. The reasons assigned by the Sub-Registrar for
refusing registration mainly relates to the absence of proof of
the adoption ceremony and the discrepancies in the
documentary records concerning the identity of the adoptive
father. The Sub-Registrar has also drawn an adverse
inference from the fact that the school leaving certificate
continued to reflect the name of the natural father and the
Aadhaar card was subsequently modified in the year 2014.
In the considered view of this Court this is nothing but
arrogating to itself the power of the civil court. These
circumstances may constitute matters for appreciation of
evidence in an appropriate civil proceeding, but cannot, by
themselves, confer on the registering authority the
jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the
adoption.
10. It is also equally important to keep in mind that
registration of the document would not, by itself,
conclusively establish the validity of the adoption. Nor would
such registration foreclose the right of any person disputing
the adoption to question its validity before the competent
Page 8 of 10
civil court. The registering authority is required to discharge
the statutory functions entrusted to it under the
Registration Act, 1908, and cannot convert the registration
proceeding into a trial of the disputed questions relating to
the adoption. Consequently, the absence of independent
witnesses, the non-endorsement of co-villagers or the
subsequent alteration of the Aadhaar record cannot be valid
grounds for refusing registration of an otherwise registrable
document.
11. The appellate authority, instead of examining
whether the Sub-Registrar had acted within the limits of the
jurisdiction conferred on him under the Registration Act,
1908, has substantially reiterated the same grounds and
proceeded to affirm the refusal by entering into the merits of
the adoption. Such an approach, in the considered view of
this Court, is inconsistent with the decision laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi (Supra) , wherein the
limits of the jurisdiction of the registering authority have
been clearly defined.
Page 9 of 10
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered view that the Sub-Registrar exceeded his
jurisdiction by adjudicating on the validity of the adoption,
same error was also committed by the appellate authority in
affirming the order of refusal. Therefore, both the impugned
orders cannot stand the test of law.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned orders are hereby set aside. The registering
authority is directed to register the Deed of
Acknowledgement of Adoption presented by the petitioner
within three days from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, subject to compliance with all statutory
requirements.
…..……….…………….
Sashikanta Mishra
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
The 6 November, 2026/ B.C. Tudu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 06-Nov-2026 15:53:51
Page 10 of 10