Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendradhar Prakartik vs M.P. Government on 16 April, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17618
1 SA-2303-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 16 th OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2303 of 2023
NARENDRADHAR PRAKARTIK
Versus
M.P. GOVERNMENT
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Pathak - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant challenging
the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 passed by Second District Judge,
Deosar, District Singrauli in regular civil appeal No.44-A/2017 affirming the
judgment and decree dated 04.07.2017 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II,
Deosar, District Singrauli in civil suit No.47-A/2015 whereby courts below have
concurrently dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction filed in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No.590 area 0.040
hectare out of 0.070 hectare, situated in Village Chitrangi, District Singrauli,
including a kachcha house constructed thereon.
2 . Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that although while
deciding issue No.1 to 3, trial court vide paragraph 10 held that Lt. Nohardhar
being pattedar krishak had acquired Bhoomiswami rights in view of Section 158
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, but has committed illegality in holding
that the plaintiff is not adopted son of Nohardhar, even in presence of registered
adoption deed dated 01.02.1988 (Ex.P/1). He submits that in the light of said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17618
2 SA-2303-2023
registered adoption deed, the plaintiff ought to have been declared Bhoomiswami
and in possession of the land in question. With these submissions he prays for
admission of the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/State supports the impugned
judgment and decree passed by Courts below and prays for dismissal of second
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 . Undisputedly, the plaintiff has not led any oral evidence about actual
giving and taking of the plaintiff in adoption by his biological father
Jagyabhandhar Dwivedi to Nohardhar and on the basis of registered adoption deed
dated 01.02.1988 (Ex. P/1), the plaintiff has tried to say that the plaintiff is
adopted son of Nohardhar. Perusal of registered adoption deed shows that it bears
signature of Nohardhar only and does not bear signature of biological/natural
father-Jagyabhandhar, therefore, in the light of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') there cannot be any presumption in
respect of valid adoption.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naresh vs. Ichrajbai, 1979
MPLJ 591, has held as under :-
"9. ......
In order to attract applicability, the presumption enacted by section 16
of the Act, fulfilment of all the following conditions is necessary :
(i) The document produced before the Court must purport to record an
adoption made;
(ii) It must be signed by the persons giving and taking the child in
adoption; and
(iii) It must be registered under any law for the time being in force.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17618
3 SA-2303-2023
Proof of these conditions is basic requirement for bringing into play
the presumption enacted by section 16. The amplitude of this presumption
extends to the compliance with all the relevant provisions of the Act."
7. The aforesaid view has also been reiterated by coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Ratan Singh vs. Rajaram, AIR 2020 MP 135 (para 21).
8 . Aforesaid aspect has also been taken into consideration by the Courts
below in the impugned judgment and in absence of signature of natural father, the
Courts below have opined that there cannot be any presumption about validity of
adoption in the light of Section 16 of the Act.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality
in the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below.
10. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
