Delhi High Court
Shri Sahib Singh vs Ms. Arvinder Kaur & Ors. on 3 December, 2010
Author: J.R. Midha
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)No.2622/2008
Reserved on : 10th May, 2010
Date of Decision : 3rd December, 2010
%
SHRI SAHIB SINGH ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. J.S. Bhasin and
Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advs. along
with the plaintiff.
versus
MS. ARVINDER KAUR & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Jagjit Singh, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may - Not necessary
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be - Not necessary
reported in the Digest?
ORDER
I.A.No.15524/2008 and I.A.No........./2008 (not numbered)
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition, mandatory
injunction, declaration and rendition of accounts in respect of
the estate of Late Amarjeet Singh. Along with the suit, the
plaintiff has filed I.A.No.15524/2008 under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A.No.............../2008
(not numbered) under Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
2. The brief facts of this case are as under:-
2.1. The plaintiff was born on 21st October, 1984. Late
Amarjeet Singh and Arvinder Kaur (defendant No.1) are
the natural parents of the plaintiff whereas Jagbir Singh
(defendant No.5) and Ravinder Kaur are the adoptive
parents of the plaintiff.
2.2. On 1st December, 1984, the natural parents, namely, Late
Amarjeet Singh and Arvinder Kaur (defendant No.1) gave
the plaintiff in adoption to Jagbir Singh (defendant No.5)
and Ravinder Kaur (adoptive parents).
2.3. According to the plaintiff, a memorandum of settlement
was executed between the parties on 1st November, 1988
in which it was agreed between the natural and adoptive
parents that if any child is borne out of the wedlock of the
adoptive parents, then the adoptive parents would cancel
the adoption and hand over the custody of the plaintiff to
the natural parents.
2.4. The plaintiff's case is that a male child was born out of
the wedlock of the adoptive parents on 4th April, 1990
and, therefore, the adoption deed was cancelled vide
cancellation deed dated 11th August, 1991.
2.5. The plaintiff is claiming the partition, injunction,
declaration and rendition of accounts in respect of the
estate of his natural father.
3. The learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4 submits that
the adoption of the plaintiff is absolute in law and the plaintiff
is deemed to be a child of his adoptive parents for all intents
and purposes with effect from the date of his adoption and all
ties of the plaintiff with the natural parents were severed and
the adoption cannot be cancelled either by the adoptive
parents or the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right
to seek any relief on the basis of cancellation of the adoption.
4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
the adoption dated 1st December, 1984 is void ab initio as the
same was conditional. It is further submitted that even if the
adoption was valid, the same was lawfully cancelled vide
cancellation deed dated 11th August, 1991 on the ground that
the adoptive parents were blessed with a son on 4th April, 1990.
5. Two questions arise for consideration in the present
case:-
(i) Whether there was a valid adoption of the plaintiff on 1st
December, 1984.
(ii) Whether there was a valid cancellation of the adoption on
11th August, 1991.
6. The plaintiff has admitted the adoption dated 1st
December, 1984 in paras 5 and 6 of the plaint. However, the
objection to the validity of the adoption has been raised for the
first time in the replication. This objection is prima facie
unsustainable inasmuch the condition in the adoption deed
dated 1st December, 1984 is contrary to law and it would not
invalidate the valid adoption.
7. The next question which arises for consideration is
whether a valid adoption can be cancelled by the adoptive and
natural parents of the plaintiff. The law in this regard is well
settled by Sections 12 and 15 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act. Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act provides that an adopted child shall be
deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother
for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and
from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her
birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those
created by the adoption in adoptive family. Section 15 of the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that no adoption
can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other
person nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as
such and return to the family of his or her birth. The Act has
made no provision for cancellation of adoption which becomes
absolute and irrevocable as a result of Section 15 of the Act.
8. In view of the plaintiff's admission of adoption in the
plaint and the legal bar to the revocation of the adoption under
Sections 12 and 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, this Court is of the view that there is no prima facie case in
favour of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also in
favour of the defendants. The plaintiff is, therefore, not
entitled to injunction or appointment of a receiver.
9. Both these applications are dismissed. However, it is
made clear that nothing herein stated shall be considered as
the expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
CS(OS)No.2622/2008
1. The parties were directed to file their respective original
documents within four weeks on 9th September, 2009.
However, the same have not been filed. Let the same be filed
within two weeks.
2. List for admission/denial of documents before the Joint
Registrar on 20th December, 2010 and for framing of issues
before Court on 6th January, 2011.
J.R. MIDHA, J
DECEMBER 03, 2010
