Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
UserName
PassWord
     
CourtCase NoDate of Judgment
High Court of BiharC.W.J.C. 14382 of 2005 C.W.J.C. 14382 of 200518-09-2007
Judge(s)
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
Parties
Kumar Sursen v/s State of Bihar
Advocate(s)
For the Appearing Parties: --------
Equivalent Citation(s)
2008 (4) RecCivR 377
2008 (2) AIRJharR 6
2008 AIR (Pat) 24
Judgment Full Text

Non Members, please send a request as an email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of the Judgment.

Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login at www.lawyerservices.in to get the Full Text of the Judgment.

LawyerServices Facebook Page












LawyerServices © Copyright 2008 - 2012 Brought to you by: Integrated Web Services Pvt. Ltd.




  Chandanben Versus Receivers appointed by the Baroda Court     New Prajapat Tiles Company Versus Derasari Labhshanker Himatlal     New Prajapat Tiles Company Versus Derasari Labhshanker Himatlal  

judgement - (1.) THE petitioner Kumar Sursen who was then a minor has petitioned this court for grant of caste certificate and residential certificate on basis that he was the adopted son of Kamal Prasad Roy and was residing with him at vlllage-Madarpur in the district of Vaishali. This has been refused by the district authorities on the ground that the petitioner was in fact a Muslim boy named Sahadat and is the natural son of majid Mian and Ayesha Khatoon of village-Gadaisarai in the district of Vaishali. Petitioner asserts that he was taken in adoption by Kamal Prasad Roy. The said Kamal prasad Roy does not dispute this fact and asserts by his actions and otherwise that he had in fact adopted the said Muslim boy at a very tender age and had been keeping him as his own son. He accordingly wanted this boy to have his caste and his residential certificates.(2.) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT has been filed and rejoinder thereto has been filed wherein these basic facts are not in dispute. With the consent of parties this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.(3.) UNDER Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 Section 6 thereof permits adoption by a Hindu of a Hindu child alone. Law does not recognize an adoption by a hindu of any person other than a Hindu. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest this petition in law. If that be so the adoption as sought to be done in respect of the petitioner by Kamal Prasad roy has no legal sanctity though it may be morally binding between the parties. If that be so then unfortunately the boy cannot get the caste certificate of his alleged adoptive parents. Similarly he cannot get a residential certificate and both cannot be granted in his name showing him son of Kamal prasad Roy. I may however observe that changing name is permissible and if the name of the boy has been changed and his natural parents have no objection the name can always continue and so far as residence is concerned it can be shown as residence of Kamal Prasad Roy but not as son of Kamal prasad. Roy but son of the natural parents.(4.) I therefore find no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed as such giving liberty to the petitioner or his alleged adoptive parents to approach for grant of requisite certificate accordingly.