The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere fact that a man is the biological father of an illegitimate child does not, by itself, prevent him from legally adopting that child under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Justice Arun Kumar, while deciding a second appeal concerning agricultural land, also upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below that a registered sale deed had not been shown to be a genuine and voluntary transaction of the original owner, Badlu.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from agricultural plots claimed by Ram Kesh as the property of Badlu. Ram Kesh's case was that Badlu was his biological father and had adopted him on November 8, 1970. He alleged that the appellants obtained a sale deed from Badlu in June 1973 by taking advantage of his condition.
The trial court accepted the adoption and cancelled the sale deed. The District Judge, Basti, affirmed that decision, following which the defendants approached the High Court in second appeal.
Two substantial questions of law were framed: whether a man could adopt his own illegitimate son and whether the finding against the sale deed suffered from any legal error.
Court's Observation on Adoption
The High Court examined the law as it stood in 1970 and found no express prohibition preventing a Hindu man from adopting his biological but illegitimate son.
The Court observed:
“The Act contains no such prohibition.”
It further held that the capacity to give a child in adoption and the capacity to take a child in adoption are distinct legal questions. The Court found that the evidence accepted by both lower courts established the ceremony of giving and taking the child in adoption.
Although the District Judge had relied on Section 9(4) of the Act, the High Court held that this was not the correct statutory provision. However, that error did not invalidate the ultimate finding because the adoption itself had been proved through oral and documentary evidence.
Court on the Registered Sale Deed
The appellants argued that the registered sale deed carried a presumption of valid execution and could not be displaced merely through oral evidence.
The High Court rejected that submission. It held that registration is relevant evidence but does not make a document immune from a challenge based on fraud, lack of free consent or other circumstances affecting the transaction.
The Court noted inconsistencies in the defendants' witnesses regarding payment of the sale consideration and also considered the circumstances in which Badlu was taken to the registration office.
Decision
The High Court found no perversity, absence of evidence or legal error in the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court.
It answered the first substantial question by holding that a Hindu male was not, merely because he was the biological father of an illegitimate child, prohibited from adopting that child when the statutory requirements were otherwise satisfied.
The second question was answered against the appellants. The Court dismissed the second appeal, affirmed the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and directed the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal.
Case Details
- Case Title: Budhi Ram And Others v. Ram Kesh
- Case Number: Second Appeal No. 1210 of 1980
- Judge: Justice Arun Kumar
- Decision Date: September 3, 2026
-300x169.webp)
