HARI RAM vs CHUNNI DEVI

[2026:RJ-JD:23044]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 252/2025
Hari Ram S/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Rikshabas, Tehsil Maulasar District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
----Appellant
Versus
Chunni Devi W/o Late Shri Bholu Ram, R/o Rikshabas, Tehsil
Maulasar District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhala Ram Chahar
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
12/05/2026
1. The instant Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the
CPC has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated
30.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Deedwana District Deedwana-Kuchaman in Civil Appeal
No.21/2018, whereby the learned First Appellate Court affirmed
the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Court
of learned Civil Judge, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No.33/2012.
By virtue of the aforesaid judgments, the suit instituted by the
respondent-plaintiff seeking cancellation of the adoption deed
dated 20.07.2009 came to be decreed and the appeal preferred by
the present appellant-defendant was dismissed.
1.1. Aggrieved thereby, the present second appeal has been
instituted invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100
CPC with a prayer to set aside the concurrent findings and decrees
passed by the Courts below.
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(2 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23044] [CSA-252/2025]
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the Court of
learned Civil Judge, Deedwana seeking cancellation of the alleged
adoption deed dated 20.07.2009. In the plaint, it was averred that
the husband of the respondent-plaintiff had expired approximately
twenty-three years ago and out of the wedlock, she was blessed
with two daughters namely Santosh and Munni. It was specifically
pleaded that the appellant-defendant was never adopted by her in
accordance with Hindu customs, rituals and mandatory legal
requirements contemplated under the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956. The respondent-plaintiff alleged that the
parents of the appellant-defendant, with an oblique motive to
usurp and grab her agricultural property, deceitfully took her to
the office of the Sub Registrar, Maulasar on the pretext of
completing certain pending partition proceedings relating to
agricultural land. Taking undue advantage of her illiteracy and
vulnerability, her thumb impressions were allegedly obtained on
certain documents without disclosing their true nature and
contents. Subsequently, an adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 came
to be prepared and notarized, wherein it was falsely recited that
the appellant-defendant would henceforth be known as Hari Ram,
adopted son of deceased Bholu Ram, husband of the respondent-
plaintiff.
2.1. It was further pleaded that the biological father of the
appellant-defendant namely Suresh Kumar procured the said
adoption deed by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. The
respondent-plaintiff asserted that the appellant-defendant had
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(3 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23044] [CSA-252/2025]
already been adopted by one Chunni Devi and, therefore, there
existed neither any legal necessity nor any lawful occasion for a
second adoption. It was further contended that the appellant-
defendant never resided with the respondent-plaintiff, nor was he
ever maintained, nurtured or educated by her; rather, he
continued to remain under the care and custody of his biological
parents. According to the respondent-plaintiff, she came to know
about the alleged fraudulent adoption deed only on 13.08.2012
when the appellant-defendant instituted proceedings before the
Sub Divisional Officer, Deedwana claiming rights over her
agricultural land. Thereupon, she applied for a certified copy of the
alleged adoption deed and upon receiving the same on
03.09.2012, she discovered that her thumb impressions had been
fraudulently utilized for preparation of the impugned document. It
was also pleaded that the alleged adoption deed did not contain
any recital regarding the mandatory ceremony of actual giving and
taking of the child, nor did it contain any lawful stipulations or
conditions essential to confer legal sanctity upon an adoption
under Hindu law. On these premises, the respondent-plaintiff
prayed that the adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 be declared null,
void and inoperative.
3. Upon service of summons, the appellant-defendant entered
appearance and filed written statement contesting the suit. It was
contended that the parties belong to the same family and had
been residing jointly for generations. The appellant-defendant
asserted that since the husband of the respondent-plaintiff had no
male issue and the appellant-defendant was treated as a son by
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(4 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23044] [CSA-252/2025]
the entire family, the respondent-plaintiff voluntarily adopted him
in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 20.07.2009. It was
further contended that the adoption deed was lawfully executed
and duly notarized in the presence of witnesses and that the
respondent-plaintiff had voluntarily affixed her thumb impressions
thereupon after understanding its contents. The allegations of
fraud, coercion and misrepresentation were emphatically denied
and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed as many as two issues including the relief clause. In
support of her case, the respondent-plaintiff examined five
witnesses including herself and exhibited seven documents. On
behalf of the appellant-defendant, six witnesses were examined
and the original adoption deed was produced and exhibited in
evidence.
5. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record, the learned trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 15.10.2018 decreed the suit filed by
the respondent-plaintiff and declared the adoption deed dated
20.07.2009 to be void and unenforceable in the eye of law. The
learned trial Court arrived at a categorical finding that the
essential ingredients constituting a valid adoption under Hindu law
had not been established by the appellant-defendant and that the
alleged adoption deed suffered from serious legal infirmities.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
15.10.2018, the appellant-defendant preferred Civil Appeal
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(5 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23044] [CSA-252/2025]
No.21/2018 before the learned Additional District Judge,
Deedwana. The learned First Appellate Court, after reappreciating
the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned
counsel for the respective parties, dismissed the appeal vide
judgment and decree dated 30.07.2025 and affirmed the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently
contended that both the Courts below committed grave illegality in
decreeing the suit despite the fact that the adoption deed dated
20.07.2009 was a registered and notarized document carrying
presumption of correctness. It was argued that the respondent-
plaintiff voluntarily adopted the appellant-defendant as her son in
accordance with Hindu customs and rituals and thereafter
executed the adoption deed acknowledging the said adoption.
Learned counsel further submitted that the parties admittedly
belong to the same family and the appellant-defendant was
always treated as a member of the family of the respondent-
plaintiff. It was contended that both the Courts below failed to
properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellant-
defendant and recorded findings contrary to the material available
on record. It was thus prayed that the impugned judgments and
decrees passed by the Courts below be set aside.
8. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar by the counsel for the
appellants and has carefully gone through the judgments and
decrees impugned herein as also the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(6 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23044] [CSA-252/2025]
9. At the outset, it is apposite to observe that the jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 100 CPC is confined only to adjudication
upon substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact
recorded by both the Courts below ordinarily do not warrant
interference unless such findings are shown to be perverse,
contrary to law or based upon no evidence.
10. In the present case, both the Courts below have concurrently
held that the appellant-defendant failed to establish a valid
adoption in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Hindu
law. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
unequivocally contemplates that for a valid adoption there must
be actual giving and taking of the child with an intention to
transfer the child from one family to another. The ceremony of
giving and taking is not a mere formality but constitutes the very
essence and soul of a valid adoption. Unless the factum of such
ceremony is duly established by cogent and convincing evidence,
the adoption cannot be recognized in the eye of law merely on the
strength of an executed document.
11. A meticulous examination of the alleged adoption deed dated
20.07.2009 reveals that there is no recital whatsoever regarding
performance of the mandatory ceremony of giving and taking. The
document is conspicuously silent about the essential customs and
rituals which are indispensable to confer legitimacy upon an
adoption under Hindu law. Furthermore, the respondent-plaintiff
consistently maintained that she was taken to the office of the Sub
Registrar under false pretences and her thumb impressions were
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(7 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23044] [CSA-252/2025]
obtained without disclosing the true nature of the document.
12. Significantly, the appellant-defendant also failed to establish
by cogent evidence that after the alleged adoption he was ever
treated as the adopted son of the respondent-plaintiff in the true
legal sense. The evidence available on record demonstrates that
the appellant-defendant continued to remain under the care,
custody and upbringing of his biological parents. No convincing
material has been placed on record to show that the respondent-
plaintiff ever maintained, educated or brought up the appellant-
defendant as her adopted son.
13. The Courts below have further recorded findings that the
appellant-defendant had allegedly already been adopted by
Chunni Devi and, therefore, the very legality and permissibility of
a subsequent adoption became highly doubtful. The findings
recorded by the Courts below are founded upon proper
appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and cannot
be said to suffer from perversity or legal infirmity warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
100 CPC.
14. It is trite law that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 100 CPC, does not sit as a Court of third factual
scrutiny. Reappreciation of evidence merely because another
possible view may exist is wholly impermissible unless the findings
recorded by the Courts below are demonstrated to be patently
illegal or perverse. In the present case, learned counsel for the
appellant has failed to point out any substantial question of law
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(8 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23044] [CSA-252/2025]
arising from the impugned judgments and decrees.
15. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that both
the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence
available on record and have correctly concluded that the alleged
adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 was devoid of legal sanctity and
liable to be cancelled. The concurrent findings recorded by the
Courts below neither suffer from perversity nor disclose any
jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.
16. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in the present second appeal. The same being
devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The judgments and decrees
dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Deedwana in
Civil Original Suit No.33/2012 and dated 30.07.2025 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Deedwana-Kuchaman in Civil
Appeal No.21/2018 are affirmed.
17. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
24-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 11:42:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)