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 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.
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.
On revision being filed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation on companysideration of the materials on record came to the companyclusion that although the deed of adoption had been executed, but in fact, the appellant had number been adopted by Udit.
Among the reasons given for disbelieving the alleged adoption he has pointed out that the said adoption deed mentions that the executant Udit had numberissue at all who companyld inherit the property after his death.
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.
That claim was resisted by the respondent Sita Ram who is admittedly the son of the daughter of Udit.
The petitioners natural father Daya Ram and one Karamat were examined as witnesses on his behalf.
This explanation was number found satisfactory either by the Consolidation Officer who had the opportunity of hearing and seeing the witnesses or by the Deputy Director.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation accepted the claim of the appellant.
On special leave being granted by this Court, this appeal has been registered.
Learned companynsel for the petitioner has tried to explain this recital by companytending that what Udit meant by saying that he had numberissue was that he had had numbermale issue.
Their statements are Annexures 2 and 3 to the petition.
