Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration that he was not the adopted son of one Sarju Pandey and in the alternative for a declaration that the deed of adoption dated 11th September, 1959 executed by Sarju Pandey was null and void and ineffective against the Plaintiff.
(2.) BABUA Bare Lal, the Defendant Appellant, was alleged to have been adopted on 19th July, 1953 by Sarju Pandey. Sarju Pandey executed a deed on 11th September, 1959 declaring that he had adopted Babua Bare Lal on 19th July, 1953 and that the boy was living since then as his adopted son; and that he performed his Up Nayan Sanskar and was in joint possession and enjoyment of his properties with him. This document is in the nature of a will executed by Sarju Pandey bequeathing all his properties "to the adopted son." The deed is not signed by the natural father of Babua Bare Lal. The two courts below have found it as a fact that the alleged adoption did not take place. Learned Counsel contends that the finding is illegal in view of the said deed dated 11th September, 1959 which is duly registered and is described by the executant as a deed of adoption. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which lays down that "wherever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved," This document is, however, not signed by the person who could have given or who is said to have given the boy in adoption. Moreover, the presumption required to be raised is that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act, that is the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The adoption in question in the present case is said to have been made in the year 1953 before the Act came into force. The provisions of Section 16 does not appear to be retrospective and for this reason also the Appellant could derive no benefit from the said provision.
(3.) THE finding whether the Defendant -Appellant was in fact adopted by Sarju Pandey on 19th July, 1953, in accordance with the requirements of a valid adoption, is a finding of fact. Learned Counsel could not establish that it suffers from any error of law. It is accordingly binding on this Court in second appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.;