Orissa HC Orders Registration Of Deed Acknowledging Adoption Said To Have Occurred In 2001, Subject To Statutory Checks; Registrar Cannot Decide Its Validity

Purastam Jena and Kamala Jena allegedly gave their son, Kamala Kanta Mandal, in adoption to Bhaskar and Laxmi Mandal on 25 March 2001, when he was about nine years old.

In 2025, the parties executed and presented a Deed of Acknowledgement of Adoption for registration; the Sub-Registrar refused registration, citing the absence of proof of the adoption ceremony, discrepancies in records concerning the father’s name, and the absence of contemporaneous evidence. Purastam’s appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, was dismissed after his death, and Kamala Jena challenged both orders in the writ petition.

Under the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authority’s role is confined to examining the document and compliance with statutory registration requirements; it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of rights, title, or legal entitlement, which are for a competent court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, (2026) 2 SCC 696, establishes that registration does not itself determine the parties’ rights or liabilities.

The court also noted that the validity of an adoption, including questions arising under Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, may be determined in appropriate civil proceedings, and that registration does not foreclose a challenge to the adoption.

The document acknowledged an adoption purportedly completed in 2001; it did not effect a fresh adoption in 2025. The Sub-Registrar therefore had to consider whether the document met the requirements for registration, not whether the adoption was proved or legally valid.

Assessing the adoption ceremony, school records, Aadhaar details, and absence of independent witnesses amounted to adjudicating the merits of the adoption—an authority the registering officer did not possess.

Those matters could be considered in civil proceedings, and registration would not conclusively establish the adoption’s validity. The appellate authority repeated the same jurisdictional error.

It allowed the writ petition, set aside both impugned orders, and directed the registering authority to register the Deed of Acknowledgement of Adoption within three days of production of a certified copy of the order, subject to compliance with statutory requirements.