The Allahabad High Court has dismissed two long-pending writ petitions concerning agricultural land and upheld the finding that Ramji, adopted by Moti Rani after the death of her husband Murlidhar, was entitled to inherit Murlidhar’s share as his adopted son.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai delivered the judgment on July 30, 2026, holding that the consolidation authorities had correctly appreciated the evidence and that there was no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from several agricultural holdings in villages in the Meja area of the then Allahabad district, now Prayagraj. The central issue was the validity and legal effect of an adoption deed dated August 2, 1960.
Ram Kripal had challenged the recording of Ramji as the adopted son of Murlidhar and Moti Rani. He argued that the adoption deed did not satisfy the requirements of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that defects in the deed could not be cured merely by oral evidence.
The consolidation authorities, however, consistently accepted Ramji’s adoption. Earlier proceedings had also resulted in the High Court directing the revisional authority to reconsider the matter. On reconsideration, the Deputy Director of Consolidation again found that the adoption was proved.
Court Examines Evidence on Adoption
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai noted that the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation had all reached the same factual conclusion regarding Ramji’s adoption.
The Court examined the adoption deed as well as the evidence of witnesses. The record showed that the adoption ceremony was stated to have taken place at Moti Rani’s residence, with rituals including worship and a havan. The witnesses to the deed and Ramji’s biological father had also supported the adoption.
The Court further observed that the earlier revisional order had properly considered the directions issued by the High Court and found that the adoption deed was fully proved. The Court therefore found no reason to disturb those factual findings.
Widow’s Adoption and Right to Inherit
A significant question before the Court was whether a child adopted by a widow after her husband’s death could also be treated as the adopted son of the deceased husband for inheritance purposes.
The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari v. Thagai Misir and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sawan Ram v. Mst. Kalawanti and Others. These decisions supported the position that adoption by a widow does not, by itself, prevent the adopted child from being treated as the adopted son of her deceased husband.
The Court observed that the Supreme Court had specifically held that restrictions under Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act could not lead to an inference that a child adopted by a widow would cease to be regarded as the adopted son of her deceased husband.
Decision
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held that there was no illegality in the consolidation authorities’ conclusion that Ramji could inherit as the adopted son of both Moti Rani and Murlidhar.
Since all three consolidation authorities had recorded concurrent findings of fact, the High Court found no further scope to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Both writ petitions, Writ-B No. 11407 of 1983 and Writ-B No. 6580 of 1986, were accordingly dismissed.
The Court also directed that there would be no order as to costs.
