Dismissed¶14

Sudhir Kumar Singh v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024/2284/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adoption deed proof — mutation under U.P. Revenue Code ss. 34, 207, 210 — Tehsildar, S.D.M. and Commissioner orders upheld — writ dismissed, no illegality — civil suit for cancellation of adoption deed dated 30.5.2013 left unaffected — Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. recall of ex-parte decree — compassionate appointment backdrop — Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench — WRIT-C 2284 of 2024 — Anish Kumar Gupta, J. — decided 15.10.2024 — neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:69451.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed — the Court found no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties, holding that the petition lacks merit. ¶14

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claimed adoptions — the deed dated 6.2.2003 allegedly executed by Krishna Bahadur Singh and the deed dated 30.5.2013 executed by respondent no. 4 — establish his succession/mutation rights, given the witnesses' denial of the former and the pendency of a civil suit for cancellation of the latter. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Court saw no illegality in the finding that the petitioner failed to prove the adoption deed dated 6.2.2003, executed by late Krishna Bahadur Singh alone; the deed is not a valid document and cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the petitioner's succession rights.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed — the Court found no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties, holding that the petition lacks merit.

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court clarified that its order will not affect the proceedings of the civil suit pending before the Civil Court for cancellation of the adoption deed dated 30.5.2013, which shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.; order dated 15.10.2024) dismissed WRIT - C No. 2284 of 2024 (Sudhir Kumar Singh v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and 4 others). The petitioner, claiming adoption first by Krishna Bahadur Singh (deed dated 6.2.2003) and later by the latter's wife, respondent no. 4 Smt. Subha Singh (registered deed dated 30.5.2013, executed to enable the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment), challenged: (i) the Tehsildar's order dated 15.1.2020 setting aside the mutation order dated 22.12.2009 and directing entry of respondent no. 4's name; (ii) the S.D.M.'s order dated 21.10.2023 dismissing his appeal under section 207 U.P. Revenue Code; and (iii) the Commissioner's order dated 1.12.2023 dismissing Revision No. 1657 of 2023 under section 210. The Court found no illegality in the impugned orders, which rested on the finding that the 6.2.2003 deed was not proved — its witnesses denied execution and it was executed by the husband alone while the wife was alive — and that the 30.5.2013 deed was sub judice in a civil suit for cancellation (ex-parte decree dated 26.9.2017 recalled on the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and suit restored). The Court clarified that its order would not affect the pending civil suit, which shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observation in this order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69451

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2284 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Divyanshu Singh,Divya Tripathi,Mohiuddin Khan,Mrs.Suniti Sachan

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Chandra Jain,Nagendra Pratap Singh,Pankaj Gupta

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Deepak Chandra Jain, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4, Shri Tej Bali Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 1.12.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 1 in Case No. 1657 of 2023 (Sudhir Kumar adopted Vs. Smt. Subha Singh and others) filed under section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 arising out of order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 2 in Case No. 7103 of 2022 (Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Subha Singh and others) filed under section 207 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the order dated 15.1.2020 passed by the opposite party no. 3 in Case No. RST/3494/2017 (Smt. Subha Singh Vs. Krishna Bahadur Singh) filed under secton 34 of the UP. Land Revenue Code, 2006.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was adopted by one Krishna Bahadur Singh, husband of the respondent no. 4 on 6.2.2003. Thereafter he continued to be adopted son and in all his educational records Shri Krishna Bahadur Singh was recorded as father of the petitioner. The said Krishna Bahadur Singh has died on 19.11.2008 and since he was in job and the petitioner wanted to apply for the compassionate appointment in his place, a formal registered adoption deed was executed for the said purpose on 30.5.2013 by the respondent no. 4 adopting the petitioner as her son. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 4 has not given NOC for the appointment of her adopted son on compassionate ground rather she was appointed on compassionate ground and also superannuated. Subsequent thereto a civil suit was filed by the respondent no. 4, the alleged adopted mother of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the adoption deed dated 30.5.2013, which was decreed ex-parte

¶11

vide judgement and order dated 26.9.2017. Against the said ex-parte order dated 26.9.2017 an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been moved by the petitioner which was allowed and the order dated 26.9.2017 was recalled and said suit for cancellation of adoption deed dated 30.5.2013 was restored to its original number and is pending adjudication.

¶12

An application under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code has been moved by the respondent no. 4 for mutation of her name in place of late Krishna Bahadur Singh, which was objected by the petitioner and the said application has been rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 25.5.2017, against which an appeal was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 9.6.2017 and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.1.2020 the Tehsildar had set aside the mutation order dated 22.12.2009 and directed that the name of respondent no. 4-Smt. Subha Singh be entered in the revenue records. Against the order dated 15.1.2020, the petitioner has filed an appeal No. 7103 of 2022 under section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.10.2023 by the S.D.M. and the order dated 15.1.2020 was affirmed. Against the order dated 21.10.2023 the petitioner has preferred a Revision No. 1657 of 2023 under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.12.2023 by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, against which the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶13

The claim of the petitioner is on the basis of one adoption deed dated 6.2.2003 which is allegedly executed by the husband of the respondent no. 4, which appears to have been produced before the Tehsildar. The witnesses of the said adoption deed have denied the execution of such adoption deed and therefore the Tehsildar held that when the husband and wife both were alive, the said adoption deed could not have been executed by the husband alone and the consent of the wife was required. In view thereof the petitioner has failed to prove the adoption deed dated 6.2.2003 since it was executed alone by late Krishna Bahadur Singh and therefore the same is not a valid document and cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the succession rights of the petitioner. With regard to the subsequent adoption deed dated 30.5.2013 is concerned, a civil suit for cancellation of the adoption deed is already pending consideration before the civil court.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, this court do no find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

However, it is made clear that this order will not have any affect in the proceedings of the civil suit pending before the Civil Court for cancellation of the adoption deed dated 30.5.2013 and the same shall be decided by the Civil Court on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 o.k.

¶17

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 1.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Revision No. 1657 of 2023 (under section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code), dismissing the petitioner's revision and affirming the S.D.M.'s appellate order dated 21.10.2023, which had affirmed the Tehsildar's order dated 15.1.2020.¶12
Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda · 1.12.2023
Prior proceeding
Respondent no. 4 moved an application under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code for mutation of her name in place of late Krishna Bahadur Singh; the petitioner objected.¶12
Prior proceeding
The Tehsildar rejected the mutation application vide order dated 25.5.2017.¶12
Prior proceeding
Appeal against the rejection was allowed vide order dated 9.6.2017 and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration.¶12
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 15.1.2020 the Tehsildar set aside the mutation order dated 22.12.2009 and directed that the name of respondent no. 4, Smt. Subha Singh, be entered in the revenue records.¶12
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's Appeal No. 7103 of 2022 under section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2023 by the S.D.M., affirming the order dated 15.1.2020.¶12
Prior proceeding
The petitioner preferred Revision No. 1657 of 2023 under section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code against the order dated 21.10.2023.¶12
Prior proceeding
The revision was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.12.2023 by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, whereagainst the instant writ petition was filed.¶12
Prior proceeding
A civil suit filed by respondent no. 4 seeking cancellation of the adoption deed dated 30.5.2013 was decreed ex-parte (judgment and order dated 26.9.2017).¶10
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was allowed; the ex-parte order dated 26.9.2017 was recalled and the cancellation suit was restored to its original number and remains pending adjudication.¶11

Sudhir Kumar Singh v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Singh v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Pragati Kapoor vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector/ Ziladhikari Ayodhya and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others

Jai Lal and Others. Vs D.D.C.Faizabad and Others.