1. On special leave being granted by this Court, this appeal has been registered. The dispute arises out of a consolidation proceeding. The appellant claimed entry in respect of khatas in question which admittedly belonged to Udit, on the basis of a registered deed of adoption dated 27-6-1972. That claim was resisted by the respondent Sita Ram who is admittedly the son of the daughter of Udit. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation accepted the claim of the appellant. On revision being filed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that although the deed of adoption had been executed, but in fact, the appellant had not been adopted by Udit. The Deputy Director, in support of the aforesaid finding, referred to the evidence on record including the evidence of Tulsi who is the nephew of Udit. Tulsi denied that any adoption had taken place. The Deputy Director also pointed out that in the deed of adoption it had been stated that Udit had no issue whereas, in fact, Udit had a daughter who predeceased him and the aforesaid Sita Ram is the son of the said daughter. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director has been affirmed by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant. The High Court has said: "In this case, apart from the registered adoption deed referred to above, oral evidence was also led by the parties in support of or to rebut the alleged adoption. The petitioner's natural father Daya Ram and one Karamat were examined as witnesses on his behalf. Their statements are Annexures 2 and 3 to the petition. On behalf of the opposite party, Tulsi, uncle of Daya Ram, was also examined. This Tulsi denied that any adoption had taken place. The Deputy Director has discussed the entire evidence and has disbelieved the evidence led by the petitioner and has believed the statement of Tulsi to the effect that no adoption had taken place. When evidence is led by both the parties, the question of onus loses importance to some extent. Moreover, the presumption raised by Section 16 is undoubtedly rebuttable and if on an appraisal of evidence and the circumstances it is held that no adoption actually took place, the finding cannot be assailed merely on the ground that the Deputy Director has not expressly referred to the provisions of Section 16 in his order. The provisions of Section 16 were expressly referred to in the appellate order of the Settlement Officer which was before the Deputy Director, and it is obvious that the provisions were present to his mind. Among the reasons given for disbelieving the alleged adoption he has pointed out that the said adoption deed mentions that the executant Udit had no issue at all who could inherit the property after his death. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain this recital by contending that what Udit meant by saying that he had no issue was that he had had no male issue. This explanation was not found satisfactory either by the Consolidation Officer who had the opportunity of hearing and seeing the witnesses or by the Deputy Director."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that once the conditions prescribed by Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in respect of the execution and registration of a deed of adoption had been complied with it is to be presumed that the adoption had been made in accordance with the provisions of the said Act unless and until it was disproved. In view of Section 16, a presumption has to be drawn by the Court. But such presumption can always be rebutted on the basis of evidence adduced before the court concerned. As already pointed out, the Deputy Director and the High Court have examined the validity of the deed of adoption in the light of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and have come to the conclusion that in fact there was no valid adoption of the appellant by Udit. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, should be reluctant to interfere with such findings recorded on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parlies. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
3. It need not be pointed out that in view of the fact that the deed of adoption has not been held to be valid it shall be deemed that the appellant's right, title and interest in the properties belonging to his natural father shall survive and shall not be deemed to have been extinguished.