Sri. Katika tt/luttaiah v. Consequently to direct the

learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner aDDroached the Court seekinq Draver as under: '.......to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not recording the petitioners adopted Son name Katika Rajendra Prasad by deleting his deceased Son name i.e. K. Rajashekar, who died on 12/06/2014 in the Service register of the petitioner and passing of the impugned proceeding No. RG.1/GDK2 and 2A/WO/3782, dated 13/09/2022 without considering of the Decree. in OS. No. 59/2O2t (Lok-Adalat Case No. 45/202L), dated lO/04/2021 on the file of the Learned Prl. Junior Civil ludge, at Godavarikhani as well as the registered Adoption-Deed No. 22/2021, dated 27 /04/2021, as bad in law and violate of Principals of natural justice and Consequently to direct the respondents to record the name of adopted Son of Petitioners by deleting petitioners deceased son, who died on 12/06/2014 in the Petitioners 2 servi:e register by suspending the imputlne( proceeding No. lG.l/GDK2 and 2A/WO/3782, dated 13,'09l2022, in the interest ofjustice and to pass...." It is specific grievance of the petitioner that Tne case of 3. the petitioner in brief, is that, the petitioner is v'orking as Singareni :mployee vide EC No. 2105181 and rad a son by name Rajashekar, who passed away on 12'06'2074' After the death <:1' the petitioner's son, the petitioner anrl his wife adopted ore Rajendra Prasad vide adoption deeC Nrr' 22/2021 daled 2 t' O'4.202I and the same was decreed in OS No 59 of 2021 (t-ok,Adalat Case No. 45 of 2021) dated tO'04 202t' Tlrereafter, the petitioner submitted an applic'rtion dated 17.OrL.',102i'- to the respondents for recording t he )etitioner's adoptel :;on's name in the petitioner's servi:e register by deletin,l t're deceased son's name. In pursuar ce 'o the said applir:atio 1, the respondent No. 2 had iss -red impugned proceedirgs dated 13'09.2022, stating ttat the petitioner failecttrrtaketheconsentoftherespondertp.iortothe adoption 3nd that the petitioner's adopted son s nilme cannot be rr:corceld in the company register as the sam( is against the ccmt)any rules' Aggrieved by said lction of the -/ J a -t/ 3 respondent No.2, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. ERUS ED THE RECORD:- 4 A ef:R 1 u 2 e hereund er: - The impuqned w 1 2 2 r f e r d " It is informed to you i.e. Sri.Katika Muttaiah, S,/o Katika Kanakaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ:SCCL_ Employee, R/o H.No.16-3-9, 2 incline Colony, Bellampalli Village & Mandal, Mancherial District, we have received your application dated 11.02.2022 for recording of your adopted son name in the company reco rds. Tha t after oetti no the oolnton of our leoal- Danel itisi nforminq vou th tvouh ve obta ined the orders before the Lo -Adala bv comDromisinq the Dec Co DANV and the said Dec s with out ta ino the consent of tsa qa i nst Hi o R A

956. - Therefore your application in respect of recording of your adopted son name in the company records is against the Company Rules, Hence, informed. B. The affidavit filed bv t e Gener al Secretarv of Mala M ha Na du li Di ct T a der:- 4 1 I lm the deponent herein and the General Secretary of vala Maha Naadu Committee, peddi:pal i District, TelerrrEana State. I know the Petitioner rer( in who is merr ber of our Mala Maha Naadu Sangharn arrd as such I arn acquainted with the facts of the cas,:. I am giving thi:; ,:ffidavit with my free will and withou. an / coercion on tl- r: advise of our Counsel. 2. I submit that, the Petitioner herein, i. r., Katika Mutt,:iah has two children, i.e., one so I namely Raja:;ekhar and daughter Smt. Katika Latha @ pamula Surr,:latha. But due to misfortune, t1e only son Raja:;ekhar was expired on 12-06-2014 ard 1iri. Katika M r:t crh and his wife adopted their close re ation one Rajerndra Prasad as their son and since tlten, Rajendra Pras;;rd has been their son as on today.

3. I s;rrbmit that, per our Custom & usage, we can adopt any' rf our relation without any age bar. Accordingly. RajelrrCra Prasad was adopted as son by K;rtikr Muttaiah ancl his wife on 27-04-2021 and got the ;tdogUon deed .eg i s:,-.red.

4. I further submit that, for the purpose c,f repetition, I iubrrit giving this affidavit with my sourd ,lepositing st,at,: cf mind and without any undue influencc nor with rry ( oe rcion. The iudoment of the Aoex Court tn Kondiba RamaEapAl Vs. Naravan Kondi in 1991 LawSr!_tUS_C'l 39. dated 2 2.O 1. l991andirt__Ela rticu la r Daraqrap h No.1 is extra ed hereunder:- t. r\llowing the plaintiff's appeal and sett ng aside the decree of the courts below, the High Courl after finding tha1. the factum of adoption had been est:ablished, -J 7 D I i ! I 5 ::lf.!"i: follows on the question of rhe vatidty of the . "s" The question then arises, is the adoption legal and vatid in taw in view or tne projj#;;i,l#u o.,, Section 10 of the Act inter alia provides that no l:i:on shal be capable of being tlr-un"ii"ujoption untess the four condition, tn"i"in''iuio'oliln uru fulfilled. We are concerned with the fourth c_ondition and it is as under: '(iv) he or she had not completed the age of fifteen years, untess there ; ;;;;";;r.lrunu applicabte to rhe Darties which ;;;;;ir";";ron, who have completed the age oi riri""r"v*lr.o",nn taken in adoption.' At the"time *'n*'i#'o]ru,n,,n was adopted he was about 22 v"urr'orj,i5i""""n though there is a difference of opinion between various schoots as to the *n#;"ior",il, ou adopted, so far as tne eom"oay s"i" ,, .t..8-"0 the position is well setfled in view of more than one judiciat decision.. ns pointeo'oii 'in"'ir,ru,, Hindu Law, 14rh Edirion '"1 p.s" lsd, i,l" ,n" Bombay state a person, may be ioopiuj ui urv age though he mav be otder tn.. ft* Io"p,li uro he may be married .;;;;;";;JiJIl ,n" !h,org.r' adoption is not invatid alrhough iii""i'pi.*,.n". -boy *".'fl"H*,i"d. the thread ceremonv or ftre Thus the custom is iudicially recognised in the Bombay State as ,"o*dr. uo"pti* ase. once rhe custoir is jrdl;;I; ;;"r",J"!) i, ,, "?."rrr'ro "i "rv not required to be iri.r""l"r1,^il"'^llll,-' . rJ:,:".l. su b s e q u'e n t Ja. ;;. ;i" ;?ff ?,"ri 3i:,,J, ;? No. belonged to the area which was part of the old P*b.?V. State and accordingly such a custom prevailed amongst then :!19't i;r" "';' f1;:,",;::;:X'oJ;t",;t':i ?i,: positio-n, in rhe otd Bombay St.i;-;;;!";; ;", Je{ or rwo insrances or'aOoption-'oi"'pi-rrin, belonging to the same caste as the plaintiff where a-chitd was adopted ar the age "d";; l;';;;., after the Act came into rorce.Jhurl, rnv'"pilll8r, " 6 .l n view oF the settled position in lavr as judicially -ecognised, if the factum of the ad cption is established its validity cannot be challr:nged on ihe ground that the adopted child had r ompleted :he age of 15 years at the time of his ad(,ption. D. Thg_J'elevant oortion of the Award der:rec1 oassed inO .No.59 of 2O21 (Lok Adalat Case No.z15 of 2021), dated 1O"04.2O2L on the file of the Principa lJu nior Civil Judqe's C is extracted hr: retrnder:- li. tlcth the parties to the suit have agret d all the cont€nts of the Adoption deed, dated 18,1i.2015. z. l'he defendants have no objection tc pa;s decree ;:nc Judgment in the present suit. 13. That the parties to the present stlit trrrived at comEromise without any coerciJn, fraud, m sr()presentation and undue influence, ith the free ,rvill and wish signed on this compromise terms I^ view of the above, terms and c()mp romise is -ec,:rced. DISCUSSION AND CO NCLUSION:- Learred counsel appearing on behalf of :he petitioner

5. placed reli,rnce on the Award decree in O.S.Nc.sl of 2021' (Lok ltdalat Case No.45 of 2O2l), dated 10.04.20:11 on the file of thr' F'rincipal Junior Civil Judge's Court, (iodirvarikhanl contends that the petitioner got registered adoption deed No. 22/2021, cated 27.04.2021 registered at SRO, Feddapalli and , i - 'l that the petitioner had made an application for recording petitioner's adopted son as the name to be recorded in petitioner's service register by deleting the petitioner,s deceased son who died on 12.06.2014 in accident, but however without considering the Lok Adalat decree, dated LO.O4.2O2l obtained in favour of the petitioner, the respondent-corporation vide impugned proceedings, dated 73.09.2022 rejected the request of the petitioner for recording petitioner's adopted son,s name in the company records, on the ground that the petitioner obtained the orders before the Lok Adalat, without taking the consent of the company and secondly, on the ground that the said decree obtained by the petitioner is against the Company rules under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Cla e tv of tion Oan Se on 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Mainten ance Act. 1956 ext acted ereunder:- 1O. Persons who may be adopted.- No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:_ 8 .\l (iv) he or she has not completed the :ge of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usag€ apllicable to tlre: lrarties which permits persons who h;rve completed tir€r it,Je of fifteen years being taken in adoptiol. 16" Presumption as to registered documents rr:lating to adoption.- Wlr,3never any document registered undr:r a ry law for t,me being in force is produced befcre any court tft€) p.r-porting to record an adoption made ard is signed by th€r Ferson giving and the person 13[inr; tl'e child in arlo[,t ion, the court shall presume that thr: ad rption has b,3rlr made in compliance with the provisilns of this Act ur r:;s and until it is disproved.

7. Lea'rred counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed r t: iance on Section 16 of Hindu l,dotrtions and Mainterrern:e Act, 1956 (referred to and extract,:d e bove) and contendsi that as per Clause (iv) of Section 10 of Hindu Adoptions; and Maintenance Act, 1956 (ref,lrre,i to and extrar:tr:d :bove) contends that there is a cllston t:xisting in between t 1e parties which permits persons of the [)etitioner's comrnuni:'/ who completed the age of 15 years beirrg taken in adoption a nd the same is even permissible as per t1e Section 10 of Clause (iv) of Hlndu Adoptions and Mainterlance Act, 1956 ar': further, the learned counsel appearing orr behalf of the petit c,ner placed reliance on the affidavi : fil:rd by the daughtr:r' o' the petitioner and also the affidat it filed by the ( ,/ D -a 9 General Secretary, Mala Maha Nadu, peddapalli District, Telangana State. B. A bare perusal of the same indicates that the fact of the petitioner, having adopted petitioner's close relation one Rajendra Prasad as their son after petitioner.s only son Rajashekhar expired on 12.06.2014, and further that a custom or usage prevalent in the petitioner's community i.e., Mala Maha Nadu community, provides for adoption without any age bar and accordingly, the said Rajendra prasad had been adopted by the petitioner herein and his wife on 27.04.2021 and the adoption deed No.22/2021, dated

27.04.2021 had been duly registered thereafter.

9. In su Dort of Detitioner's case, learned counsel iudoment of the ADex Court a Doea rr nq on behalf of the Detitio er olaced rel iance in ln Atluri Brahmanandam (D) lHR LRS Vs. Anne Saa Bapuii f e Dorted in 2O1O LawSuit(SC) 819, dated 18.1 1.2010 a nd rn na rticu la r ara Nos. 11 to L7 and the sa me rs extractedhe reu nder: - D 10 l -l

11. S;ection 1 and Section 16 of the Hirdu qdoptions 3nc Maintenance Act, 1956 of which r:fer:nce was ra,-.€r during the course of arguments read as 'ollows:- " 10. No person shall be capable of t,einrl taken in adoption unless the following condil:ions are fulfilled, namelY:- (i) .,. (ii) . . . (iii) . . . (iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custo'n 'lr usage applicable to the parties which pe-mitr; persons who have completed the age of fiftee:n y'lars being taken in adoPtion.

16. Whenever any document registe'ed lnder any law for the time being in Force is prldur:ed before any Court purporting to record an adop:ion made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, tht: C lurt shall presume that the adoption has been made in compllance with the provisions of t.lis '\ct unless and until it is disProved."

1.2 rAle are concerned for the purpose of this case with ection 1 which provides tha t: a Person cla r s;r: (iv) of tc, trr: adopted should not have completed the age of 15 yr:a r;. But there is also an exception provided therein to tl-rer ilforesaid required qualification which prc vides that if th,:re is a custom or usage applicable to the parties pr:rrritting persons who have completed the age of 15 yr:ar, being taken in adoption, such a person could also b,: validly ldopted. On the other hand, '.he effect and the implication of Section 16 of the Act is that if there is ar1,y document purporting to record an adop'rion made arrrl is signed by the person giving as well t he person terl.:irrq the child in adoption is registered lnd':r any law for the time being in force and if it is prcdu':ed in any CoLrrt, the Court would presume that th€ ad:>ption has b,3er made in compliance of the provisions cf the Act ur r:ss and until it is disProved. d I --,rra&;, . !l ,

13. There is no denial of the fact in the present case that the respondent was more than 15 years of age at the time of his adoption. But the respondent has relied upon the exception provided in ection 10 and has proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence like Ex. A-B that there is a custom in the ,'Kamma,' community of Andhra Pradesh for adoption of a boy even above the age of 15 years. Therefore, the aforesaid exception which is engrafted in the same part oF the provision of Section 10 oF the Act was satisfied. Since the aforesaid custom and aforesaid adoption was also recorded in a registered deed of adoption, the Court has to presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act, since the respondent has utterly failed to challenge the said evidence and. also to disprove the aforesa id adoption.

14. Reference has also been made to a Division Bench decision of the Andhra pradesh High Court reported in 1964 Andhra Weekly Reporter p.156. In the said decision, the Division Bench has recognized that there is a custom among the members of the ,'Kamma" caste to adopt a boy of more than 15 years old and that such custom is valid. The said decision rendered by a Division Bench in 1964 has stood the test of time and has remained binding till date. 15. In the case of Uiaqar Singh v, Mst. Jeo reported in AIR 1959 SC 1041, this Court has held that the ordinary rule is that all customs general or otherwise have to be proved, but under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872 nothing need to be proved of which the Court can take judicial notice. It was also held that when a custom has been repeatedly recognized by Courts, it is blended into the law of land and proof of the same would become unnecessary under Section 57 of Evidence Act, 1972.

16. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recognized such a custom among the "Kamma" community of Andhra pradesh of

12. \] tak nJ in adoption of a person even above the age of 15 years of age and has held the same to be legal and 'va lid 1r'. I1 view of the above discussion, we fird n,) infirmity ,?t all in the findings of the trial courl wlrich were afri'nred by the High Court that the adrpti )n of the 'escondent by Late Anne Seetharamaiah is legal and valid We, therefore, find no merit in this apl:eal which s dlsmissed but we leave the parties to bear their own :OSI5.

10. l.earned counsel appearing on berhalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein ir; entitled for the rr:lief as prayed for by the petitiont:r in the present Writ Petition. 11, Learned sta dinq counsel ap Dea rr nq on bcha.l-t-.qf the respo ndents submits that :nts filed bv wav of reolv affidavit filed bv the D etiti n r, dated LO.L2.2O24 had een subsequent to DA ,s-ef-lhc order im uqne ted 13.09.2022 with the res pondent- corDoration anL therefore, the oetition e r mav be directgd__l :o submit a detailed re D resentation puttino- oetition er's o rtevanc(r________as put-forth in t e Drese Writ P t ition, dul v enclos inq all the re-hya-nt documents in suoport of petit ion er's case ) '---7. r9 t3 for reconsideration of the subiect issue bv the n -cor

12. Lea rned counsel a DDearlno on behalf of petitioner does not disoute the sa id submission made bv the learned sta ndino counsel a Deaflnq on b half of the r ondents,

13. Takino into consideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The impugned proceedings Ref:RG.I/GDK2&ZA{WO / 3782, dated L3.O9.ZOZ2 issued by the respondent-corporation (referred to and extracted above) d) The Award decree passed in OS.No.59 of 2021 (Lok Adalat Case No.45 of 2O21), dated t4 lO.O4-.2O2L on the fite of the Principal Jurrior Civil Judgr:'s Court, Godavarikhani' e) The registered Adoption Deed of l\dopted son of the petitioner vide No' 2212021' dated 2',7.A4.2O2L registered at SRO' Peddapalli' f) The affidavit filed by the General Secretary of Mala Maha Naadu Committee' Peddapall'i District' Telangana State (referred to and extractt:d above) g) Section 16 and Clause (iv) of Section 1O of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenancr: '\ct' (referred to and extracted above) 1956 h) The judgment of the Apex Court enli:;ted below (,referred to and extracted above)' i) In Kondiba RamaPaPal vs NaraYan PaPal rePorted in 1991 Kondiba LawSuit(SC)39, dated 22'O1' 199 1 ii) In Atluri Brahmanandam (t)) THR LRS Vs' 20:tO tawsuit(Sc) Anne Sai Bapuji rePrted in 819, dated 18'11'2O1O ,3 - t5 This Court ooine decision f the resDondent-corooration, dated 13. O9.2O22 in iectinq he eti I for recor e ado t t o of the etition er tn he como anV records is contrarv, the Vrew fth CA DEx ou rt ud ments ( referred to and extracted above) and also the Decree in O.S.No.59 of 2OZL in (Lok A 10.o4.2O2L on the file of Princioal Jun ior Civil Judoe's Cou rt, Godavarikha ni and also without orovidinq reasonable oDDortu itv to the oetitioner to oroduce documents before the resDo ndent-corporat lat Case No.4512021) bstantia itioner' further c nvrn the como etent Authoritv that the Detationer's case falls for consideration under Section O of Clause {rv) of Hindu AdoDtions and Maintenan ce Act, 1956 and Section 16 of the Hindu Ado ptions and Mainte ance Act.

1956. The Writ Petition is allowed and the i ouoned n s Ref:RG.1 GDK2 A wo 3742 .o9.2 2 r n tion i t6 l \.] set-asidg. and th respondent -co rPOratic,n is directed to reconsider o titioner's reou est for recor!.!_ng_lhC petitio n e v records in accorclance to law in conformitv with Drt 4elples of 's name in t r's ado rnDan natur_aliqstice bv orovidinq a reasonable oppo rtu nitv of Dersona I he petitioner makinq the detailed forth the Detition-e_t's qrievance as put-forth in the present Writ resentation Dutt re D Petition dulv enclosino a ll the relevant ments an suooqg!_of oetitioner's case within a period of one (O1) week fro uDon Ieceiot of the said reoresentati rder and and the releva nt resoon ct_gnts are directe case, the to reconsider the su biect rssu e tna ccordance to law as er the directions as indicatg{ as above within a period of thret: (03) weeks thereafte r and Dass aDDroDriate orders a!!di-ulv commlulieate the decision to the petition'3r, However, there shall be no order as to costs. ,f To, \ 2 J 4 M E KKS BS t7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/-S. MALL IKARJUNA RAO STANT REGISTR A //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Chairman and Managrng. Director' Singarenr Collieries Company Limited' At Singareni Bhavan Hyderaoao' I r' The General Manager, Ramagundam- Division-ll Area' Eight incline Colony' c"i#i[.n:""i,*peo'oapatri Di;trict' TS One CC to SRl. K RAJANNA Advocate [OPUC] oneCCtoSRI.PSRIHARSHAREDDY(SCFoRSINGARENICoLLIERIES co lro; toPUCl Two CD CoPies HIGH COUR.T DATED:261AA2025 ORDER WP.No.6769 of 2023 CC TODAY ./'4. cR ( .HE S 14 2 1 JUI,J 2025 z ) \ .\ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 A c