1. Whether Valid Adoption required for proper adjudication of probate/will for the adopted child?
2. Does the adoption ceremony mandatory for a valid adoption?
• Anil Bijli had filed this application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act for impleading the applicant as a party in the probate case pending in the Court.
• It was mentioned in the application that Anil Bijli is an adopted son of late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli and one of his legal heirs who is directly affected by the grant of probate and he is a necessary and proper party to the present case and his presence is necessary for proper adjudication of the aforesaid probate case
• Notice of this application was given and a detailed reply was sent on behalf of petitioner No. 1. according to the notice. It is categorically refuted in reply that Anil Kumar, the petitioner, is the adopted son of the late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli. It was also stated that the legally correct and binding will was executed late by Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli. Petitioner No. 2 was listed as being the legally married wife and widow of the late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli.
• The late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli was mentioned as being the son of the late Shri Sain Dass. Three sons were born to Shri Sain Dass, Shri Madan Lal Mehra, Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli, and Shri Brij Mohan Mehra. The late Shri Sain Dass had a daughter, Smt. Kumari Darshna. Smt. Smt. Shri Chaman Lal Mahajan married Darshna Kumari. Smt. Smt. From their wedlock, Darshna Kumari and Shri Chaman Lal Mahajan were blessed with three sons, namely Shri Anil Kumar (the claimant mentioned above), Shri Lalit, Shri Titoo, and one daughter, Neena. Smt. Smt. Darshna Kumari had abandoned and run away from her spouse. As such, the whole family had been very much annoyed with her conduct. In these circumstances, later Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli who was financially quite well off had given some financial help to the children of his sister Smt. Darshna Kumari sometime to taken advantage of the position and status of late K.M. Bijli, his sisters children used his surname ' BIJLI' but he had never adopted the applicant or any other children of Smt. Darshna Kumari.
• It is also incorporated in reply to the application that the late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli never treated the applicant, Anil Kumar, as his adopted son. Ajay Bijli is the only child of the late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli. In reply, it is denied that the applicant is a necessary or a proper party. It is mentioned that the applicant is not even the class-I heir and is not required to be shown in the array of relations or to be impleaded as a party. The applicant has no right in the estate of late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli and had no right whatsoever to challenge the genuineness, execution, validity, or enforceability of the Will executed by late Shri Krishan Mohan Bijli. The rejoinder to the reply had been filed in which averments of the petition have been reiterated.
The court noted that without the mother's permission, the father can not give in adoption. There was no conformity with either Section'7 'or Section'9' and thus, as the petitioner pleaded, there was no adoption. (Para 16) Taking into account the extent of the facts and circumstances and the vast number of other documentary evidence on record, it was clear that the applicant refused to ensure that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance requirements were complied with. The claimant even refused to prove that any adoption ceremony had taken place. (Para 17) The appeal is completely mala fide and is a misuse of the judicial procedure. In these conditions, with costs quantified as Rs. 10,000/-, the application was dismissed. The suit and all surviving IAs were disposed of accordingly.
• Admittedly, there was no adoption procedure in the present case and the wife of late Shri K.M. Bijli was alive and no permission was obtained, as required by the Act. Similarly, Section '9' of the Act must be respected.
• Without the mother's permission, the father will not give in approval. According to Mr. Rohtagi, either Section'7 'or Section'9' had not been complied with, and hence there was no adoption as demanded by the claimant.
• It was evident, taking into account the extent of the facts and circumstances and the vast number of other documentary documentation on hand, that the applicant refused to maintain that the conditions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 were complied with and that the applicant was never adopted by the late Shri K.M. Bijli. The claimant even refused to prove that any adoption ceremony had taken place.