SC Dismisses Plea Challenging Adoption Deed, Upholds Lower Court Orders
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of an adoption deed, ruling that the plea was filed belatedly and lacked proper pleadings. The case involved a dispute over the adoption of the first defendant by Sudama Singh, whose biological son and his wife, the appellants, questioned the legality of the adoption. The Court upheld the lower court and revisional court orders, emphasizing that evidence without proper pleadings holds no value in legal proceedings.
Background of the Case
The appellants, Biraji @ Brijraji and his wife, filed Original Suit No. 107/2010 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saidpur, Gazipur, seeking cancellation of the registered adoption deed executed by Sudama Singh in favor of the first defendant. They also sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession of the disputed property.
The adoption deed, executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jakhaniya, District Gazipur, mentioned that the adoption ceremony had taken place on November 14, 2001. The appellants contended that no valid adoption took place and challenged the deed on the grounds that the biological father of the first defendant, Ramesh Chander Singh, was not present at the adoption ceremony, as he was on duty in the Rajput Regiment Centre, Fatehgarh, on that date.
Arguments by the Petitioner
The appellants, represented by their counsel, argued the following:
- The adoption deed was fraudulent and executed without following proper legal formalities.
- The biological father of the first defendant, Ramesh Chander Singh, was on duty in Fatehgarh on the date of adoption, proving that the adoption could not have taken place.
- The trial court erred in dismissing their application to summon the leave records of Ramesh Chander Singh to establish that he was not present at the adoption ceremony.
- The lower courts wrongly rejected their amendment application to include necessary pleadings regarding Ramesh Chander Singh’s leave records.
Arguments by the Respondent
The respondents countered the appeal with the following arguments:
- The adoption deed was duly registered and mentioned the details of the adoption ceremony.
- The appellants failed to plead their objections regarding the presence of Ramesh Chander Singh in the original suit, making their subsequent applications irrelevant.
- The trial court rightly rejected the application to summon the leave records, as there were no corresponding pleadings in the plaint.
- The appellants were trying to delay the proceedings by repeatedly filing applications and revisions.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, made the following observations:
1. Importance of Proper Pleadings
The Court emphasized that pleadings form the foundation of a legal case. It held:
“In the absence of specific pleadings in the plaint, any amount of evidence will not help the party. The appellants failed to raise the issue of the biological father’s absence at the time of filing the suit.”
2. Delay in Filing the Application
The Court noted that the appellants filed the application to summon leave records only after the closure of evidence, which indicated an attempt to delay the proceedings.
“When the adoption ceremony, which had taken place on 14.11.2001, is mentioned in the registered adoption deed, there is absolutely no reason for not raising a specific plea in the suit.”
3. Rejection of Amendment Application
The Court upheld the rejection of the appellants’ amendment application, which sought to introduce new facts at a late stage. It ruled:
“Subsequent to the dismissal of Application No. 97-C, the appellants filed an amendment application, which was rightly rejected by the trial court and confirmed by the revisional court.”
4. No Grounds for Interference with Lower Court Orders
The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the trial court, revisional court, and the High Court, stating:
“The reasons recorded by the lower courts are valid and in accordance with settled principles of law. The appellants were attempting to protract the litigation despite the High Court’s direction for expeditious disposal.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled:
- The appeals were devoid of merit and were accordingly dismissed.
- The trial court correctly refused to summon the leave records as there was no prior pleading.
- The amendment application was rightly rejected to prevent unnecessary delays in the trial.
- The High Court’s order directing the expeditious disposal of the suit was justified.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that pleadings are essential in legal proceedings. It clarifies that new evidence cannot be introduced without prior pleadings and discourages unnecessary delays in litigation. By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court has upheld procedural integrity and prevented misuse of judicial resources.
Petitioner Name: Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr..Respondent Name: Surya Pratap & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.Place Of Incident: Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh, India.Judgment Date: 03-11-2020.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Biraji @ Brijraji & vs Surya Pratap & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-11-2020.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
