IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1106 of 2008 SHANKAR PRASAD Versus KUTUR RAM & ORS ----------- 4. 18.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner that the court below has committed a jurisdictional error in not recalling its earlier order dated 10.8.2007, is absolutely misconceived. From the order dated 10.8.2007, it would be clear that the petitioner had filed an application seeking intervention in succession case filed by one Kutur Ram claiming that as his brother Ram Jatan Ram working as a peon in the office of Deputy Director Consolidation, Ara had died issueless, he be issued a succession certificate in capacity of legal heir and succession of the aforesaid Ram Jatan Ram for claiming certain amount of Ram Jatan Ram. The court after perusing the materials brought on record by the petitioner claiming himself to be an adopted son of Ram Jatan Ram had held that the adoption certificate produced by him dated 28.8.1983 was an unreliable document in view of the caste certificate issued by Circle Officer, Danapur dated 6.11.2006 showing the date of birth of the petitioner to be as 3.1.1986. The court therefore, on the basis of the materials available on record had found that the petitioner was not fit to be impleaded as a party to the succession case filed by Kutur Ram. It was this order dated 10.8.2007 which was sought to be recalled at the instance of the petitioner who had again filed 2 an application on 27.8.2007 enclosing a new material namely some entry in the census records showing the age of the petitioner to be twenty-five years and thereby seeking to dispute his date of birth of 3.1.1986 as recorded in the certificate of the Circle Officer issued on 6.11.2006. The court below having appreciated this fresh material as yet has rejected the claim of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party by recalling the earlier reasoned order dated 10.8.2007 on the ground that even that certificate and entry of the census authorities clearly went to show that the name of the father of the petitioner was Govind Tatwan and not Ram Jatan Ram which in fact demolished the very story of adoption introduced by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the document dated 28.8.1983 to support the case of the petitioner that actually the petitioner was adopted son of Ram Jatan Ram in view of the declaration made by the original parent of the petitioner namely Govind Mistry and Smt. Durga Devi wherein they had acknowledged the fact of adoption of the petitioner by Ram Jatan Ram and his wife Subhago Devi way back on 28.8.1983. On the basis of such document, the counsel for the petitioner is quite emphatic in his submission that the court below had committed an error in not impleading the petitioner as a party to the succession case filed by the brother of Ram Jatan Ram inasmuch as the entire property including the amount of Rs. 1,43,065/- of saving bank account of Ram Jatan Ram was to be inherited and acquired by non-else but the petitioner himself. 3 This Court however is not at all impressed with the said document relied by the counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as it is an unregistered document and in fact a declaration made on a stamp paper of rupees two only which has been notarized. In this regard, Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act clearly provides that only a registered document if produced before any court purporting to recording the fact of an adoption purely signed by the person taking the child in adoption shall be a conclusive presumption of the adoption made unless the contrary is proved. Admittedly, there is no registered deed of adoption in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in favour of the petitioner and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the court below had not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner of his adoption and thus, being added as a party in the succession case filed by the brother of late Ram Jatan Ram. The court below in fact on both the occasions while passing the order dated 10.8.2007 and on 1.2.2008 has made a threadbare examination of the case of the petitioner and the document filed by him for proving such adoption have been found to be wholly insufficient and in fact contradictory to each other. That being the position, the court below has not committed any error either in passing the impugned order dated 1.2.2008 refusing to recall the earlier reasoned order dated 10.8.2007 or even in passing the original order dated 10.8.2007. The prayer of the petitioner for impleadment as a party to the succession case was rightly refused and the petitioner failed to 4 prove himself either a necessary or a proper party. The petitioner, if he is so much sure of his adoption, must get his factum of adoption duly declared by a competent civil court by filing a suit inasmuch as he is not armed with any registered document of his being adopted by Ram Jatan Ram. With the aforementioned observations, this application must be and is hereby dismissed. Surendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)