2013 (1) TMI 858 - SC - Indian Laws

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Adoption of a male child from outside the family - Right to inherent the property / legacy rights of the adopted child - HELD THAT -The apex court restored the trial court decision that holding the adoption of Raghunath by Smt. Laxmibai was valid and the adoption deed was a legal document which could in fact, be relied upon;also the ceremony of giving and taking of the child and that performance of all other religious ceremonies was conducted ; and the photographs taken at the time of adoption could be relied upon. The said adopted child Raghunath, inherited all the property of Smt. Laxmibai when she died before the trial of the suit even commenced. The inheritance was held to be valid, as it was held that there was no custom of adopting of a male child only from within the said family and, consequently, the adoption of Raghunath by Smt. Laxmibai from outside, was upheld. Therefore,The judgments and decrees of the appellate courts are set aside.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the adoption deed.
2. Existence of a family custom prohibiting adoption from outside the family.
3. Procedural and evidentiary aspects related to the adoption ceremony and deed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Adoption Deed:
The appellants argued that there is a presumption of validity for the registered adoption deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The trial court found the adoption deed to be a legal document, duly executed and registered, with all requisite ceremonies performed. The appellate courts, however, doubted the validity of the adoption deed, citing suspicious circumstances and the non-examination of independent witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appellate courts erred in doubting the validity of the registered adoption deed without sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 16. The court emphasized that the burden of rebutting the presumption was on the respondents, which they failed to discharge effectively.

2. Existence of a Family Custom Prohibiting Adoption from Outside the Family:
The respondents contended that a custom existed within the family that prohibited the adoption of a male child from outside. The trial court found no evidence of such a custom, noting that only four adoptions had taken place over 375 years, all from within the family, but this did not establish a binding custom. The appellate courts, however, concluded that such a custom existed based on the historical pattern of adoptions. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the evidence was insufficient to establish a custom. The court noted that customs must be ancient, certain, and reasonable, and the respondents failed to prove the existence of such a custom by clear and unambiguous evidence.

3. Procedural and Evidentiary Aspects Related to the Adoption Ceremony and Deed:
The trial court found that the adoption ceremony was valid, with the giving and taking of the child performed in the presence of a large crowd and documented by photographs. The appellate courts expressed doubts about the ceremony, citing the non-examination of independent witnesses and the involvement of interested parties. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the adoption ceremony, including the testimony of the photographer and the registered adoption deed, was sufficient to prove the validity of the adoption. The court emphasized that the quality of evidence, rather than the quantity, is crucial, and the appellate courts erred in dismissing the evidence on mere technicalities.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate courts had erred in their judgment by not properly appreciating the evidence and by relying on insufficient grounds to doubt the validity of the adoption. The court restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, validating the adoption and dismissing the existence of a prohibitive custom.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the appellate courts were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were restored. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →