Puran Cha n Chand …..Review Review & Anr. v. Lekh Raj a Raj & Ors.

“Plaintiffs are in re in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgme dgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; ow; whereby the suit filed by the appellants for can cancellation/declaration that the impugned Adoption void; and further decl tion Deed is illegal, null and declaration to the effect that defendant No.3 has no s no right in the property of the plaintiffs; has bee been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. It is inter alia su a submitted by ld. counsel for the appellants that it is it is established fact on record that plaintiff No.1 is is mentally retarded since birth and plaintiff No. No.2 being his wife, is his legal guardian. As s s such, suit was filed by plaintiff No.2 on beha behalf of both the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs being issueles ueless had adopted defendant No.3, who is son of brot brother of plaintiff No.2/Lekh Raj/defendant No.1 No.1 Kalawati/defendant No t No.2. It is submitted that at the time of adoption, de n, defendant No.1 had assured plaintiffs that after ado adoption, physical custody of defendant No.3 will ill be handed over to the plaintiffs, but this was as not done. Defendant No.1 did not allow defenda ndant No.3 to live with the plaintiffs.

3. Moreover, it is e is established fact on record that plaintiff No.1 is a m is a mentally retarded person. As such, he was not in t in a position to give consent in the Adoption Deed eed and, therefore, the said Deed cannot be sust sustained. Learned counsel further contends that defendant No.1 had persuaded plaintiffs to s to execute the said Adoption Deed merely with a vie view to grab the property of the plaintiffs. It is subm submitted that Adoption Deed VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 3 was therefore, executed cuted by the defendants in a fraudulent manner and and motive. It is submitted that keeping in view t ew these facts, plaintiff No.2 had orally cancelled th d the Deed which is void ab initio. As such, learned rned Courts below could not have non-suited the app ppellants.

4. Learned counse further submits having framed 7 issue issues with issue No.1 being about the legality of th of the said adoption deed, the Ld. Trial Court has err s erred in deciding said issue in favour of defendants ants/ respondents. In coming the said conclus nclusion, Ld. Trial Court completely ignored Sec Section 11 (vi) and Section 7 of Hindu Adoption and and Maintenance Act, 1956. S.11 (vi) specifically s lly says that the child to be adopted must actually ally be given and taken in adoption by the parent rents or guardian concerned or under their authori hority with intent to transfer the child from the fam family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned oned child or a child whose parentage is not known own, from the place or family where it has been brou brought up to the family of its adoption. Section 7 spe specifically says any person of unsound mind does n es not have the legal capacity to adoption and Althoug hough, the wife take a child in is in fact legal guardian dian of the husband but in the adoption deed the signa signatures of the husband are present and the wife ha e has not signed on his behalf being his guardian.

5. It is further subm submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that hat PW-7 Dr. Rajiv Dogra in his testimony on 09.10.2 .10.2009 has stated on mental assessment of plaintiff/a tiff/appellant No.1 that he had an IQ of 55 which com comes under the category of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 4 50% mental Impairmen rment. He has also said that said impairment could b uld be result of head injury or by birth and in absen bsence of any head injury it should have been pre presumed by the Ld. Trial Court that he was a pe a person of unsound mind by birth.

6. Learned counsel nsel for the appellants further submits that in the pre present case, the appellants came to know about t out the fraud only when the defendant No.1 threate reatened plaintiffs that their entire property will ill go to defendant No.3, thereby protecting the p the plaintiffs under Section 17 & 27 of the Limitation A ion Act, 1963.

7. It is accordingly ingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and ; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Cour Courts below be set aside.

8. No other argume ument is raised on behalf of the appellants/plaintiff ntiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appella pellants and perused the case file in great detail. il. I find no merit in the submissions advanced b ced by learned counsel for the appellants.

9. It is concurrent ent finding of fact on record that the Adoption Deed eed duly bears the signatures of the plaintiffs. On On a Court query, learned counsel for the appellan ellants has admitted this fact. Even otherwise, plaintif intiff No.2 in her evidence as PW1 has admitted tha that both the plaintiffs had executed the Adoption ion Deed on 03.08.2004. PW2 has also admitted signa ignatures of both the plaintiffs on the said Deed. She She admitted that the Deed was executed with the the consent of her husband and that defendant No t No.3 had been taken into adoption when he was was 10 years old. It has been VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 5 contended that the Ado Adoption Deed was entered fraudulently by the defendants against plaintiffs. However, no , no instance or any incidence of fraud has been point ointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiffs at the t the time of execution of the said Adoption Deed Ex. Ex.D2. Even no evidence has been led to establish lish that the said Deed was fraudulently obtained.

10. On the contra ontrary, the validity and authenticity of the Ado Adoption Deed was proved from the testimony of D of DW2 Ran Singh, Registry Clerk; DW3 Rameshwa shwar Saini; and DW4 Vinod Goyal, who duly prov proved the execution of the D2. Adoption Deed Ex.D2.

11. Validity of the A the Adoption Deed has also been challenged by the y the plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiff No.1 was n as not in a fit state to execute the said Deed as he is he is mentally retarded since birth. To prove their s eir said contention, plaintiffs had examined PW7 Dr. Dr. Rajiv Dogra. However, it is clearly recorded by b by both the Courts below that PW7 has also not pro proved that plaintiff No.1 is mentally retarded pe person since birth. Even otherwise, if plaintiff No iff No.1 was mentally retarded since birth, his consent sent would not be required as plaintiff No.2 being his his guardian was competent to execute the Adoption ption Deed on behalf of both the plaintiffs. And Plain laintiff No.2 has admitted her willingness for adopting pting defendant No.3.

12. Contention of th f the plaintiffs that physical custody of defendant No nt No.3 was not given to them after adoption, is also also without force. First and foremost, Adoption D n Deed contains no such recital. Secondly, plain laintiffs have not shown that VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 6 any efforts were made ade by them to change the parents name, address ress etc. of defendant No.3 in the documents of defend fendant No.3.

13. Last but not the l the least, as per the own case the plaintiffs, ad , adoption ceremony was performed in the year ear 2000; whereafter formal Adoption Deed was re s registered on 03.08.2004. Whereas present sui suit was filed only on

06.01.2014. Accordingl ingly present suit is barred by limitation.

14. Learned counse unsel for the appellants is unable to controvert o rt or dispute the above said facts and findings.

15. In view of the ab e above, I find no ground is made out to interfere in re in the impugned judgments and decrees of the lea learned Courts below. The present Regular Sec dismissed. Second Appeal is hereby

16. Pending applica lications, if any, stand disposed of.” The principal ground raised raised in the present review application cation is that while deciding the Re he Regular Second Appeal, this Court has n t has not adhered to the provisions of ons of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Ci of Civil Procedure, 1908, inasmuch much as points for determination were not f not framed and the evidence on rec on record has not been properly appreciated eciated. It is further sought to be cont e contended that the adoption in question w tion was merely a paper transaction an tion and the essential requirement of giving a ving and taking in adoption was not fu not fulfilled. Various documents such as ele as electoral rolls, school records and c s and certain precedents have also been referr referred to in an attempt to re-agitate t gitate the matter. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 7 Having considered the submis submissions raised in the review application cation and having perused the record, ecord, this Court finds no merit in the same. It is a settled proposition of la n of law that the scope of review is extremel tremely limited. A review petition can on cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise isguise. Interference in review jurisd jurisdiction is permissible only when there there is an error apparent on the face e face of the record, or discovery of new and w and important evidence which cou ch could not be produced despite due diligen iligence, or for any other sufficient rea ient reason analogous thereto. In the present case, the ord he order dated 21.01.2026 was passed afte ed after hearing learned counsel for th l for the appellants at length and upon detai detailed consideration of the entir entire record. This Court had specifically ifically noticed the concurrent findin findings recorded by both the Courts belo ts below, particularly with regard to th rd to the execution and validity of the Adopti doption Deed dated 03.08.2004. The

4. The findings recorded therein are based o ased on appreciation of evidence, incl e, including admissions made by the plainti plaintiffs themselves as well as tes as testimonies of attesting and official wit ial witnesses. The contention now sought to ught to be raised regarding non- compliance liance of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is PC is wholly misconceived. The Regular Se lar Second Appeal was not being de ing decided as a first appeal but within the in the limited jurisdiction under S der Section 100 CPC, where interference ference is warranted only on substan ubstantial questions of law. This Court, whi t, while dismissing the appeal, had , had categorically held that no ground was nd was made out to interfere with the ith the concurrent findings of fact VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 8 recorded b rded by the Courts below. Therefore, efore, the argument sought to be raised is no d is nothing but an attempt to re-argue argue the appeal on merits. Similarly, the plea that the a the adoption was not valid for want of ac of actual giving and taking, or th or that the same was a paper transaction action, has already been considered a ered and rejected while deciding the appeal. ppeal. This Court had taken note of ote of the fact that the Adoption Deed bore bore the admitted signatures of t s of the plaintiffs and that its execution s ution stood duly proved through cog h cogent evidence. No material has been br een brought on record in the present resent review application to show any error ap rror apparent in the said findings. The reliance placed upon c pon certain documents such as electoral r oral rolls, school records or other other material is also of no consequenc equence at this stage. These are matter matters pertaining to appreciation of evidence idence, which cannot be re-examined mined in review jurisdiction. The judgments ments cited by the applicant also do n o do not advance the case of the applicant, cant, as the same are based on the on their own facts and do not demonstrat nstrate any apparent error in the order order under review. The plea of fraud, limitatio itation and alleged continuing wrong has g has also been dealt with in the origi e original judgment, wherein this Court had t had noticed that the suit itself was lf was filed after a considerable delay and and was rightly held to be barre barred by limitation. No error apparent ha nt has been pointed out in the said fin said finding. It is thus evident that the re the review applicant is merely seeking re ing re-appreciation of the entire m ire matter on merits, which is impermissi rmissible in exercise of review jurisdic urisdiction. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 9 In view of the above, and and also keeping in view the absence of nce of the applicant at the time of he e of hearing, this Court finds no ground to nd to entertain the present review ap ew application. Accordingly, the review app w application is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, sh any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 April 08, 2 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document