Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20899 of 2012. Case: Madhu Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20899 of 2012
CounselFor Petitioner: Neeraj K. Tiwari, Adv.
JudgesMohd. Rafiq, J.
IssueHindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956) - Section 16
CitationAIR 2013 Raj 99
Judgement DateJanuary 02, 2013
CourtRajasthan High Court

Judgment:

  1. This writ petition, filed by petitioner, seeks to challenge order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority dated 25-2-2009 and the Board of Revenue dated 19-11-2012, both of whom have set side order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nasirabad, dated 31-8-2007 declaring petitioner to be adopted son of deceased Omkar Gurjar and respondent No. 2 Smt. Kani on the strength of adoption deed dated 10-12-1999.

  2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue have erred in law in holding that adoption of petitioner was not valid because he was 35 years of age on the date of registration of adoption-deed. It is contended that there are certain communities where custom of adoption is prevalent even at late age and someone could be taken in adoption at 35 years of age. His alternative submission is that adoption had in fact taken place when petitioner was a child of less than 15 years of age but the deed got registered after death of Omkar, by his widow Smt. Kani. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. It is also contended that learned S.D.O. has rightly held that since the adoption deed was registered, a presumption would arise as to its validity according to Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

  3. Perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority clearly indicates that the petitioner was not able to show by any iota of evidence that he was less than 15 years of age when he was adopted. The Board of Revenue has also in its judgment held that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT