A separate application ought to be made for the issue of separate writs to quash the separate orders. Otherwise on one application if it did succeed, several separate writs would have to be issued and that would lead to an absurd position. Thereby, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stood to be dismissed as held by the Hon’ble Cuttack High Court before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.R. Mohapatra in the matter of Hajaru Mahakur v. Pitambar Pradhan and others [O.J.C. No.10903 of 1999].
Facts of the case relate to the Writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, wherein the petitioner was the recorded tenant. Petitioner and his wife executed a registered deed of acknowledgment an adoption No-1 on 5th February 1963 as same on 19th February 1982 the petitioner canceled the said registered deed of adoption. Again, the petitioner executed a deed of adoption in favor of Adoption No-2(Opposite party). The land register under Section 6 of the Consolidation Act was prepared in the name of the petitioner’s wife and the opposite party. The Opposite party filed one objection clause to record and, in Adopted 2nd son name, exclusively. The Consolidating officer recorded the case land exclusively in the adopted 2nd son’s name.
The deed of acknowledgment of Adoption No-2 was canceled and the deed of adoption in favor of opposite Party No- 1 was executed. Thus, the appellate forum committed an error in holding to the adopted son. Assailing the said order, such writ petition had been filed. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 takes within the ambit the deed of acknowledgment of adoption. There being a registered one, there arose a presumption of valid adoption unless it has been disproved. Thus, strict proof of adoption was not required under law as there was the presence of a recital of giving and taking ceremony in the deed of acknowledgment itself. It was further submitted that the deed of acknowledgment of adoption was not signed by the natural parents; the same could not attract the presumption under Section 16 of the Act. The validity of the registered deed of cancellation could only be in the competent civil court and till then its void.
The Hon’ble Court said that the petitioner could not prove the giving and taking ceremony of adoption in accordance with law and the registered deed was found to be questionable. On the other hand, the registered deed of Adoption No-1 attached a “presumption of valid adoption in view of Section 16 of the Act and as the same has not been disproven in accordance with law. Registration deed of the adoption document is in favor of attaining presumption of valid adoption and cannot be quashed by law.”
Judgment Reviewed by – Kaviya S.