The Orissa High Court ruled that a valid Hindu adoption cannot be denied recognition merely because the adoption deed was registered after the employee’s death. The Court held that performance of adoption rituals is decisive, and late registration cannot defeat a rightful claim for compassionate appointment.
The Orissa High Court has clearly ruled that once a valid adoption under Hindu law is proved, the fact that the adoption deed was registered later cannot be used as a ground to deny compassionate appointment under Railway rules.
The Court made it clear that registration of an adoption deed is not compulsory for an adoption to be legally valid.
The ruling came in the case Union of India and Others v. K Manoj Patra and Others, where the Union government challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The Tribunal had directed the Railways to consider compassionate appointment for K Manoj Patra, who is the adopted son of a deceased railway employee.
A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India and South Eastern Railway, and upheld the CAT’s order in favour of Patra.
The High Court examined whether registration of an adoption deed is mandatory for an adoption to be valid. It held that neither Registration Act, 1908 nor Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 requires compulsory registration of an adoption deed for adoption to take legal effect.
The Court clearly stated,
“Once the requisites of valid adoption, as discussed by Mulla’s Hindu Law supra, are met, adoption takes effect, regardless of registration,”
while also explaining that although registration is optional, it only creates a presumption of validity under Section 16 of the 1956 Act when properly executed.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh Govt. Replaces ‘Adopted Son’ With ‘Adopted Child’ to Remove Gender Bias
The Railways had rejected Patra’s claim for compassionate appointment mainly on the ground that the adoption deed was registered on February 8, 2010, almost two years after the death of the railway employee on April 2, 2008.
Relying on Railway Board instructions, the department argued that only those adopted children are eligible for compassionate appointment whose adoption was completed and became valid before the employee’s death.
However, the High Court found this reasoning to be incorrect. It took note of a civil court decree passed in 2021, which had clearly recorded that Patra was adopted on July 4, 2003.
The adoption was carried out with due performance of essential Hindu rituals such as the giving and taking ceremony and ‘Datta Homam’. At the time of adoption, Patra was around five years old and fully satisfied all statutory requirements.
The CAT, Cuttack Bench, had already treated this civil court decree as “unimpeachable evidence in law” and accepted that the adoption was valid and completed well before the employee’s death. The High Court agreed with this view and found no reason to interfere.
The Court also drew an important distinction between the actual act of adoption and the later documentation of adoption. It clarified that adoption becomes complete when the required religious ceremonies are performed, and the adoption deed only records or proves that event.
Explaining this legal position further, the Court observed,
“Firstly, a valid adoption comes into existence once the rites and rituals obtaining the community are performed,”
after referring to the principles laid down in Mulla’s Hindu Law.
It further added,
“The Adoption Deed is registered long after the demise of employee concerned, is not much relevant to validity of adoption. It needs no mentioning that performance of prescribed rites is constitutive of adoption and subsequent execution & registration of Deed of Adoption is only evidentiary,”
clearly rejecting the Railways’ argument.
The High Court also noted that the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act could not apply in this case because the adoptive father had already passed away by the time the adoption deed was presented for registration.
However, the Court clarified that this defect only affects the evidentiary value of the document and does not affect the validity of the adoption itself, which had already been independently proved through the civil court decree.
In light of these findings, the High Court fully affirmed the CAT’s direction and ruled in favour of K Manoj Patra, thereby rejecting the writ petition filed by the Union of India and South Eastern Railway.
Advocate R K Kanungo appeared for the Central Government and South Eastern Railway. Advocates D K Mohanty, S Nayak, B N Behera and S Das appeared on behalf of K Manoj Patra.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Hindu Adoption
