Adoption Unenforceable Without Explicit Recitals and Proof of Mandatory Rites of Giving and Taking

The respondent (plaintiff), an illiterate widow, filed a suit seeking cancellation of an adoption deed dated 20.07.2009. She alleged that the appellant’s biological parents fraudulently obtained her thumb impressions at the Sub-Registrar’s office under the pretext of land partition proceedings to usurp her agricultural property.

She asserted that the appellant never lived with her, and no ceremony of "giving and taking" occurred as required by Hindu law.

The appellant (defendant) contended the adoption was voluntary and conducted per Hindu rites.

Both the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Deedwana) and the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Deedwana) concurrently decreed in favor of the respondent, declaring the adoption deed void.

The appellant moved the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

The Court applied the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, specifically the requirement that for a valid adoption, there must be the actual "giving and taking" of the child to transfer them from one family to another; this ceremony is the "essence and soul" of a valid adoption.

It also applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits the High Court’s jurisdiction to "substantial questions of law" and prohibits interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

The Court observed that the mere existence of a notarized or registered document does not validate an adoption if the mandatory ceremony of giving and taking is absent.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 contained no recital regarding the performance of such rituals.

Furthermore, the evidence established that the appellant continued to reside with and be maintained by his biological parents, failing to prove he was ever treated as the respondent's son.

The Court emphasized that it does not act as a "third factual scrutiny" court; since the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal perversity in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence or identify a substantial question of law, judicial interference was unwarranted.

The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which declared the adoption deed dated 20.07.2009 null, void, and inoperative.