Adoption Deed Without Giving-and-Taking Ceremony Has No Legal Sanctity, Rajasthan HC Affirms

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging cancellation of a 2009 adoption deed, holding that absence of the mandatory giving-and-taking ceremony is fatal to any claim of valid adoption under Hindu law.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has dismissed a civil second appeal filed by Hari Ram, a man whose claimed adoption by Chunni Devi, widow of the late Bholu Ram, had been declared void by two courts below. Justice Farjand Ali, sitting singly, declined to admit the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, finding that no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. Both lower courts had held that the adoption deed dated 20 July 2009 lacked the essential ceremony of giving and taking the child, which the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 treats as the very foundation of a valid adoption. The judgment was pronounced on 12 May 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Chunni Devi, a resident of Rikshabas, Tehsil Maulasar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman, instituted Civil Original Suit No. 33/2012 before the Civil Judge, Deedwana, seeking cancellation of the adoption deed dated 20 July 2009. Her husband, Bholu Ram, had died approximately twenty-three years before the suit was filed. She had two daughters from the marriage, Santosh and Munni, but no male issue.

In her plaint, Chunni Devi alleged that the parents of Hari Ram, with the motive of usurping her agricultural property, took her to the office of the Sub Registrar, Maulasar, on the false pretext of completing pending partition proceedings relating to agricultural land. Taking advantage of her illiteracy, her thumb impressions were allegedly obtained on documents without disclosing their true nature. The adoption deed that emerged from this exercise recorded that Hari Ram, son of one Suresh Kumar, would henceforth be known as the adopted son of the late Bholu Ram.

Chunni Devi stated that she came to know of the adoption deed only on 13 August 2012, when Hari Ram initiated proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, Deedwana, claiming rights over her agricultural land. She obtained a certified copy of the deed on 3 September 2012 and thereafter filed the suit. She also pleaded that Hari Ram had already been adopted by another person named Chunni Devi, making any subsequent adoption legally impermissible.

Hari Ram contested the suit. He asserted that the parties belonged to the same family and had lived jointly for generations. Since Bholu Ram had no male heir, the entire family treated Hari Ram as a son, and Chunni Devi voluntarily adopted him in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 20 July 2009. He denied all allegations of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation, and contended that the adoption deed was lawfully executed, duly notarized, and that Chunni Devi had affixed her thumb impressions after understanding its contents.

What the Trial Court and First Appellate Court Found

The trial court framed two issues, including the relief clause. Chunni Devi examined five witnesses, including herself, and exhibited seven documents. Hari Ram examined six witnesses and produced the original adoption deed in evidence.

On 15 October 2018, the Civil Judge, Deedwana, decreed the suit and declared the adoption deed void and unenforceable. The court found that the essential ingredients of a valid adoption under Hindu law had not been established and that the deed suffered from serious legal infirmities.

Hari Ram appealed. The Additional District Judge, Deedwana, re-appreciated the entire evidence and, on 30 July 2025, dismissed Civil Appeal No. 21/2018, affirming the trial court's findings in full.

Hari Ram then filed S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 252/2025 before the Rajasthan High Court under Section 100 CPC, praying that the concurrent judgments and decrees of both courts below be set aside.

The Legal Issue: Ceremony as the Soul of Adoption

Before the High Court, counsel for Hari Ram argued that the adoption deed was a registered and notarized document carrying a presumption of correctness. He contended that both courts below had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had recorded findings contrary to the material on record.

Justice Farjand Ali identified the governing principle at the outset: the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC is confined to adjudication upon substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below do not ordinarily warrant interference unless those findings are perverse, contrary to law, or based upon no evidence.

The court then turned to the substantive requirements of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Act requires, for a valid adoption, that there be an actual giving and taking of the child with the intention of transferring the child from one family to another. Justice Farjand Ali observed that this ceremony is “not a mere formality but constitutes the very essence and soul of a valid adoption.” Without cogent and convincing evidence of such a ceremony, an adoption cannot be recognised in law merely on the strength of an executed document.

A close examination of the adoption deed dated 20 July 2009 showed that it contained no recital whatsoever regarding the performance of the giving-and-taking ceremony. The document was entirely silent on the essential customs and rituals that the Act treats as indispensable. This silence, the court held, was a fundamental defect that no presumption attached to a notarized document could cure.

Post-Adoption Conduct and the Prior Adoption

The court also examined whether Hari Ram's conduct after the alleged adoption supported the claim. The evidence on record showed that he continued to remain under the care, custody and upbringing of his biological parents after 20 July 2009. There was no convincing material to show that Chunni Devi ever maintained, educated or brought up Hari Ram as her adopted son. The court found that Hari Ram had failed to establish by cogent evidence that he was ever treated as the adopted son of Chunni Devi in any meaningful legal sense.

The courts below had also recorded a finding that Hari Ram had allegedly already been adopted by another person named Chunni Devi. This made the legality and permissibility of a subsequent adoption highly doubtful. Justice Farjand Ali noted that these findings were founded upon proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and could not be said to suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.

Why Section 100 CPC Did Not Permit Interference

The High Court reiterated that it does not sit as a court of third factual scrutiny under Section 100 CPC. Re-appreciation of evidence merely because another possible view may exist is wholly impermissible unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be patently illegal or perverse. Counsel for Hari Ram was unable to point to any substantial question of law arising from the impugned judgments and decrees.

The court concluded that both courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly held that the adoption deed dated 20 July 2009 was devoid of legal sanctity and liable to be cancelled. The concurrent findings disclosed no jurisdictional error warranting interference.

Outcome

Justice Farjand Ali dismissed S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 252/2025 as devoid of merit, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The judgments and decrees dated 15 October 2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Deedwana, in Civil Original Suit No. 33/2012, and dated 30 July 2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana-Kuchaman, in Civil Appeal No. 21/2018, stand affirmed. The stay petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.