Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MALI RAM & ORS versus B O R & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


MALI RAM & ORS v B O R & ORS - CW Case No. 2492 of 1998 [2006] RD-RJ 2120 (5 October 2006)




Mali Ram & Others Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer & Others

(SB Civil Writ Petition No.2492/1998)

SB Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

Date of order: October 05, 2006.



Mr. Bhanu Pareek, for the petitioners.

Mr. R.P.Kuldeep, Addl.Govt. Advocate for State.

Mr. R.K.Goyal, for respondents.


The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order of Board of

Revenue (for short `Board') respectively passed on April 3, 1992, August 13, 1997 and January 20, 1998 whereby it was held that the respondent

Hanuman had 1/3 share in the agricultural land belonging to deceased Deva his adopted son. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the material on record. 3. The Board allowed the revision vide order dated April 3, 1992 filed by respondent Hanuman and directed that 1/3 share of deceased Deva be mutated in favour of Hanuman. The special appeal filed under section 11 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act by the petitioners was also dismissed on

August 13, 1997 as it held that Hanuman had 1/3 share in the land of deceased Deva in view of registered adoption deed executed by deceased

Deva in favour of Hanuman. Review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on January 20, 1998. 4. Presumption of genuineness is attached to the registered adoption deed as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance

Act,1956 (for short `1956 Act') which provides as under:-

"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption. - Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved." 5. In view of the afore quoted section the Board had presumed that the adoption deed had been made in compliance with the provision of 1956

Act. I find no illegality in the impugned orders of the Board. 6. Resultantly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

(Shiv Kumar Sharma)J. arn


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.