The division judge bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar and Justice P. B. Bajanthri of the Patna High Court held that declaratory suit in regard to adoption comes within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that one Bhola Sao was married to one Parwati Devi and they both decided to adopt a son as they had no child of their own. So, they placed a proposal before his brother-in-law / Ramchandra Prasad Bedil, and his wife Sabo Devi (deceased), who agreed to give their son (Appellant/Plaintiff) to which they agreed and the appellant started living with the adoptive parents.
After Bhola Sao died, the differences between Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and the appellant arose. Furthermore, Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and his son instigated Parwati Devi against the Appellant/Plaintiff causing some differences between the adoptive mother and the Appellant/Plaintiff. It was placed before the court that Bhola Sao purchased land in the name of his wife and the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant got to know that the khata number and boundary of the land were wrongly mentioned in the sale deed, so he got it corrected and the same was put before the sub-registrar for registration. However, no correction was made in the deed of Parwati Devi and the Appellant forcibly acquired her land and constructed the double-storey building over there. Then, Ramchandra Prasad along with his son entered the house of the Parwati Devi after taking advantage of the absence of the Appellant and they restricted the entry of the Appellant and his family members into the house. However, the Appellant/Plaintiff kept mum to avoid nuisance and litigations. After that, Parwati Devi filed the eviction suit against the tenant of the Appellant at the instigation of Ramchandra Prasad Bedil and his son. During the pendency of the appeal, Parwati Devi died and then the appellant filed a petition for substitution in her place. The Court was, however, pleased in instructing the Appellant/Plaintiff to get a succession certificate from the appropriate Court. As a result, the need for the present suit arose.
Relevant issue before the court
“Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit for declaration that the Plaintiff is adopted son of Bhola Sao and Parwati Devi and on account of being adopted son, he is a legal heir to them.”
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the Court has the authority to hear all civil suits under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the exception of suits whose consideration is expressly or implausibly banned. However, excluding the Civil Courts' jurisdiction is not something that can just be assumed; instead, it must be either stated or strongly implied.
It was furthermore observed that it was very well settled that the declaratory suit in regard to adoption comes within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P., Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane & Ors. Vs. Vithu Hira Mahr & Ors., and Rajan Samotra & Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors.
Then, the court raised the question of whether jurisdiction of Civil Courts has been excluded in regard to the adoption by the Family Courts Act, 1984,
It was noted that adoption is not a matter over which the Family Court has jurisdiction. The Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act of 1984 does not include adoption in any of the clauses from (a) to (g).
Also, as a single forum for family litigations, Family Court was established. Civil Courts have jurisdiction over the adjudication of other civil disputes. As a result, no adoption-related disputes may be decided by Family Courts. It was furthermore noted that An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the judgment of the family court and directed to return the plaint to present it before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, subject to the law of limitation.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Appeal.
Case Title: Satya Narayan Prasad Gupta @ Sato Sao @ Satya Prakash Prasad Vs Bijay Kumar Gupta
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Case No.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.333 of 2018
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
