Man’s 2.45-Acre Land Claim Fails as Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Finding His Brother’s Adoption by Their Uncle Was Not Proved

In brief

The question

Whether the concurrent findings rejecting the alleged adoption disclosed a substantial question of law warranting admission of the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court held

The Court held that no substantial question of law warranted admission of the second appeal.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, made no order as to costs, and directed that a decree be drawn accordingly.

01Facts

Padum Singh sued for declaration of title, injunction and correction of revenue records concerning 2.45 acres originally recorded in the name of his father, Pursati. He contended that his brother, Soman Singh, had been adopted by their paternal uncle, Sitaram, and therefore could not claim a share in Pursati’s property.

p. 3

The Trial Court held that the adoption had not been proved under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), and dismissed the suit; the First Appellate Court affirmed.

pp. 3–4

In this second appeal, the appellant argued that the courts below had not considered the adoption’s effect on Soman Singh’s succession rights in the properties of both Sitaram and Pursati.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the concurrent findings rejecting the alleged adoption disclosed a substantial question of law warranting admission of the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

pp. 4–5, 7

ii.Whether the alleged adoption was established in accordance with Sections 6 and 11 of HAMA, including where the proposed adoptive father already had three sons.

pp. 5–7

03Law Applied

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal may be entertained only if a substantial question of law arises; the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings merely because another view is possible.

pp. 4–5

The Court relied on Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179; Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545; Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala, (2020) 19 SCC 57; and U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others, (2025) 4 SCC 215.

pp. 4–5

Sections 6 and 11 of HAMA require, among other things, that the adoption satisfy the statutory prerequisites and conditions, including that an adoptive father taking a son in adoption must not have a living Hindu son, son’s son or son’s son’s son at the time of adoption.

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 6 Section 11

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The Court found no evidence on the Trial Court record establishing who gave Soman Singh in adoption, whether that person had legal capacity to do so, or whether the person taking him in adoption was legally competent.

p. 7

It also noted that Sitaram already had three sons at the relevant time, engaging the restriction in Section 11 of HAMA.

p. 5, 7

The statutory requirements were therefore not established, and the appellant’s challenge did not demonstrate perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings that could give rise to a substantial question of law.

p. 7