Court Rules Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act Permits Adoption by Biological Father if Statutory Conditions Are Met; Confirms Fraudulent Execution of Registered Sale Deed Despite Registration
In a landmark judgment dated September 3, 2026, the Allahabad High Court delivered a comprehensive verdict in the case of Budhi Ram and others (Appellants) versus Ram Kesh (Respondent), affirming the validity of adoption of an illegitimate child by his biological father under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and concurrently upholding the cancellation of a registered sale deed executed fraudulently.
The dispute arose over agricultural land allegedly held as bhumidhari holdings by one Badlu, a follower of Arya Samaj principles. The plaintiff Ram Kesh claimed to be Badlu's biological illegitimate son, born during the marriage of his mother to another man, Budhi Ram. According to Ram Kesh, Badlu had adopted him in 1970 following the statutory adoption ceremonies. Despite this, the defendants procured a registered sale deed from Badlu in 1973 for the disputed land, which Ram Kesh challenged as fraudulent.
The lower courts-the Trial Court and the District Judge in Basti-had decreed cancellation of the sale deed, finding the adoption valid and the sale deed to be a product of fraud and undue influence. The appellants challenged these findings in a second appeal before the Allahabad High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The High Court framed two pivotal legal questions: whether a Hindu male could adopt his own illegitimate son under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and whether the findings on the fraudulent execution of the sale deed were legally sustainable.
Rejecting the appellants' contention that the Act prohibited such adoption, the Court held that the statute does not expressly disqualify an illegitimate child from being adopted by his biological father. The Court examined Sections 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Act, noting that the capacity to give a child in adoption and to take the child in adoption are distinct concepts, and no statutory bar exists against biological fathers adopting their illegitimate children if other statutory requirements are met.
The Court also clarified that the mother of an illegitimate child has the capacity to give the child in adoption even without the biological father's consent if the father is absent or not in a position to consent, drawing upon precedents from Kerala, Mysore, and Madras High Courts. It further emphasized that the essential factor is the actual giving and taking ceremony with the intention to transfer the child from the family of birth to the adoptive family. The evidence presented, including oral testimony of witnesses to the adoption ceremony and corroborative entries in family registers, school certificates, and pass books, substantiated the validity of the adoption.
On the challenge to the registered sale deed executed by Badlu in favor of the appellants, the Court reiterated that registration, while carrying evidentiary weight, does not make a document immune from challenge on grounds of fraud, undue influence, or lack of free consent. The Court found that the oral evidence and circumstantial facts, including inconsistencies in the defendants' testimony about the consideration paid, the condition of Badlu at the time, and the manner in which he was taken to the registry office, justified the conclusion that the sale deed was not a genuine transaction.
The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently and was liable to be cancelled. It held that the second appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited and would not permit a reappraisal of evidence unless the findings are perverse or legally erroneous, which was not shown in this case.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming that a Hindu male may adopt his own illegitimate son if statutory conditions are satisfied, and that a registered sale deed can be set aside if proved to have been executed fraudulently.
The appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal.
This ruling clarifies important legal points regarding adoption rights under Hindu law and the scope of challenge to registered instruments, reinforcing protections against fraudulent property transactions.
Bottom Line:
Adoption of an illegitimate child by his biological father is not prohibited under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided the statutory requirements for a valid adoption are satisfied. Concurrent findings of fraud regarding the execution of a registered sale deed are sustainable if supported by evidence and surrounding circumstances.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Sections 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 91, 92; Registration Act, 1908 Sections 58, 59, 60; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100
Budhi Ram v. Ram Kesh, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972550
