L.N.MITTAL,J. - (1.) DHIRENDER Kumar has filed this revision petition under 388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, the Act).
(2.) TITIONER filed petition under section 372 of the Act for grant of succession certificate regarding pensionary benefits of Ram Chander since deceased who was Clerk in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhiwani and died in harness. The petitioner claimed that he was adopted son of the deceased vide adoption deed dated 13.5.1997. The deceased also executed Will dated 10.6.1999 in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed to be sole legal heir of the deceased. Respondent No. 2 Ram Kalan alias Roshni contested the claim of the petitioner and claimed herself to be wife and sole legal heir of the deceased. Respondent no. 2 denied the alleged adoption of the petitioner by the deceased and also denied the alleged Will dated 10.6.1999. Respondent no. 2 also made counter-claim for succession certificate in her favour exclusively. Learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.5.2012 discarded the Will set up by the petitioner but accepted his claim as adopted son of the deceased and accepted claim of respondent no. 2 as wife of the deceased and therefore, ordered issuance of succession certificate qua pensionary benefits of the deceased jointly in favour of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 in equal shares. However, appeal against the said judgment preferred by respondent no. 2 herein stands allowed by lower appellate court vide judgment dated 9.11.2012 and thereby petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed whereas counter-claim of respondent no. 2 herein has been allowed holding that she alone is entitled to the debts due to the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short, the Hindu Act), in view of registered adoption deed dated 13.5.1997, there is presumption that adoption of petitioner by the deceased was made in compliance with provisions of the Act. The contention although apparently very attractive is completely devoid of substance.;