Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4956 of 2001 (Old No.44121 of 1998) Ilam Singh ……….. Petitioner Versus Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others. ……… Respondents …………….. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rahul Consul Advocate, holding brief of Sri N.S.Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.01.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. in Second appeal No. 42 of 1989-90, Ilam singh versus Kalam Singh and others. 2. The petitioner filed a suit bearing Revenue Case No. 8 of 1983-84, under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, claiming his title over the disputed property. The suit was filed on the ground that petitioner and Kalam Singh/respondent No.6 were real brothers. One Sri Badru, resident of same village, took the respondent No.6 in adoption, and the adoption deed was registered according to law. Respondent No.6 had also filed a 2 mutation case, bearing No.367 of 1942 and his name had been mutated in place of Badru, vide order dated 15.05.1942. Therefore, the respondent No.6 has lost all rights in the ancestral property of his own father late Sri Madiya. In support of his case the petitioner had filed oral as well as documentary evidence. The respondent No.3/Assistant Collector, Bhatwari (District-Uttarkashi) dismissed the suit on 30.01.1989. 3. Against the order dated 30.01.1989, petitioner preferred appeal bearing Revenue Appeal No.6 of 1988-89 before the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division who also dismissed the appeal on 15.01.1990 affirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner also challenged the said order by filing second appeal before the respondent No.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. The Board of Revenue also dismissed the second appeal by the impugned order and affirmed the orders passed by the first appellate court and Assistant Collector. Review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 16.09.1998 by the second appellate court i.e. Board of Revenue. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the adoption- deed dated 12.04.1938, which is an admitted registered document is conclusive proof of the factum of adoption of the contesting respondent –Kalam Singh. The adoption of respondent No.6 has been registered according to law, which was in force at that time, by paying Rs. 550/- as a Nazarana to Maharaja Tehri under Section 163 of Narendra Hindu Law and thereafter the said adoption – 3 deed had been registered by the court. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revenue entries are not documents of the title whereas the adoption-deed is a document of title whereunder the respondent No.6-Kalam Singh will succeed to the properties left by his adopting father Badru. Hence the finding recorded by the courts below including the second appellate court that the adoption deed was never acted upon is erroneous and against the evidence on record. 5. The courts below recorded a finding that the adoption-deed was never acted upon while the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the adoption-deed is valid one as it has been registered under the law prevailing at the relevant time. The respondent No.6 has lost his rights over the ancestral property of his father in view of the said valid adoption- deed which had fully been acted upon. It is also urged that the petitioner is still in possession over the disputed property. Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that no adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother. Section 12 of the said Act provides that an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption. 6. In view of the above, I find that the courts below committed error in not considering the evidence recorded by the petitioner with regard to adoption-deed. I think it is a fit case for remand to decide the question whether the adoption-deed was acted upon or not? 4 7. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. Case is remanded back to the court below to decide the above question in view of the evidence adduced by the parties in the case before the trial court and in view of the observations made above. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh 5