Ceremony of Giving and Taking is the “Very Soul” of a Valid Adoption Under Hindu Law: Rajasthan HC [Read Order]

Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has dismissed a second appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of two courts below declaring an adoption deed void and unenforceable, holding that the essential ceremony of giving and taking of the child was never performed and that the deed had been obtained by fraud, in the case of Hari Ram v. Chunni Devi, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 252/2025 [2026:RJ-JD:23044]. The order was passed on May 12, 2026 by Justice Farjand Ali.

The respondent-plaintiff, Chunni Devi, a widow whose husband had died approximately twenty-three years ago leaving behind two daughters, filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Deedwana in 2012 seeking cancellation of an adoption deed dated July 20, 2009, by which the appellant-defendant Hari Ram had purportedly been adopted as her son. The plaintiff alleged that the parents of the appellant-defendant, with the oblique motive of usurping her agricultural land, had taken her to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Maulasar on the false pretext of completing partition proceedings relating to agricultural land, and had obtained her thumb impressions on documents without disclosing their true nature and contents. The adoption deed so prepared falsely recited that the appellant-defendant would henceforth be known as Hari Ram, adopted son of the plaintiff’s late husband Bholu Ram.

The plaintiff further alleged that she became aware of the fraudulent adoption deed only on August 13, 2012, when the appellant-defendant initiated proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deedwana claiming rights over her agricultural land. Upon obtaining a certified copy of the deed on September 3, 2012, she discovered that her thumb impressions had been fraudulently used. She also pleaded that the deed contained no recital regarding the mandatory ceremony of actual giving and taking of the child, and that the appellant-defendant had, in any case, already been adopted by another Chunni Devi, making a second adoption legally impermissible. She further alleged that after the purported adoption, the appellant-defendant had never resided with her, been maintained by her, or been brought up in her household, and had remained entirely under the care of his biological parents.

The appellant-defendant denied all allegations of fraud and maintained that the parties belonged to the same family, that he had always been treated as a son by the respondent-plaintiff’s household, and that the adoption had been voluntarily performed in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, with the deed lawfully executed and notarized in the presence of witnesses.

The trial court decreed the suit in 2018, finding that the essential ingredients of a valid adoption had not been established and that the adoption deed suffered from serious legal infirmities. The Additional District Judge, Deedwana, affirmed this judgment on appeal in July 2025. The present second appeal challenged these concurrent findings before the High Court.

Justice Farjand Ali, noting that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC is confined to adjudication of substantial questions of law and that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or contrary to law, upheld the decisions of both courts below. The Court held that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 unequivocally requires, for a valid adoption, that there be an actual ceremony of giving and taking of the child with the intention of transferring the child from one family to another. The Court observed that this ceremony is not a mere formality but constitutes “the very essence and soul of a valid adoption,” and that unless its factum is established by cogent and convincing evidence, an adoption cannot be recognised in law merely on the strength of an executed document.

An examination of the adoption deed revealed that it contained no recital whatsoever regarding the performance of this mandatory ceremony and was conspicuously silent regarding the customs and rituals indispensable to a valid Hindu adoption. The Court further noted that no convincing evidence had been placed on record to show that the appellant-defendant was ever maintained, educated, or brought up by the respondent-plaintiff after the alleged adoption, having remained throughout under the care of his biological parents. The Court also noted the additional legal difficulty arising from the finding that the appellant-defendant had already been adopted by another person, rendering the lawfulness of a subsequent adoption highly doubtful.

Finding that the appellant’s counsel had failed to identify any substantial question of law arising from the impugned judgments, and that the concurrent findings of the courts below were neither perverse nor did they disclose any jurisdictional error, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed both the trial court’s decree of 2018 and the first appellate court’s judgment of 2025.

Case Details: Hari Ram v. Chunni Devi, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 252/2025 [2026:RJ-JD:23044]. Before Justice Farjand Ali. Order dated May 12, 2026. Mr. Bhala Ram Chahar appeared for the Appellant.

[Read Order]