- (1.) The appellants challenge judgment and decree dated 01.09.1988, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, reversing the judgment and decree dated 01.08.1987, passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Bathinda. Counsel for the appellants submits that the only dispute in this case is whether Jagsir Singh is the validly adopted son of Dharam Singh (deceased). The onus to prove the adoption by clear, cogent and reliable evidence lay upon the respondents. After enactment of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') an adoption has to be made by a registered written instrument. The failure of the natural father to appear before the Registrar and endorse the adoption deed, negates the adoption deed and, therefore, does not raise a presumption as to execution of a valid adoption deed as envisaged by Section 16 of the Act. The endorsement before the Sub Registrar by the natural mother of the child alone leaves no ambiguity that the adoption made, without endorsement by the natural father, is illegal and, therefore, does not confer the status of an adopted child upon Jagsir Singh (defendant/respondent No. 1). It is argued that evidence of so called ceremonies of adoption produced by the respondents was rightly rejected by the trial Court by holding that it is beyond pleadings. The first appellate Court has, however, reversed these findings without assigning any clear and cogent reasons. The adoption deed is even otherwise surrounded by suspicious circumstances and when read alongwith the fact that the father did not make an endorsement, before the Sub Registrar, raises a credible inference that the adoption deed is a fabricated document, prepared with the sole object of depriving the appellants of their inheritance to the estate of Dharam Singh. In support of his arguments, counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sukho Alias Phool Wati (Died) through LRs v. Bijendeer and another, 2010 159 PunLR 71.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law:-- "1. Whether to raise a presumption of validity of an adoption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, is it necessary that the natural father should also sign the document before the Registrar? 2. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has misread oral and documentary evidence on the record? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court is perverse and liable to be reversed?" No-one is present on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment as well as judgment recorded by the trial Court and appraised the record.;