SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 159

J.C.SHAH, K.S.HEGDE
L. Debi Prasad (Dead) By L. Rs. – Appellant
Versus
Tribeni Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.P.Gupta, E.C.AGARWAL, P.C.AGRAWAL, S.R.AGARWAL, V.S.DESAI`

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The High Court and Supreme Court concluded that Shyam Behari Lal was the adopted son of Gopal Das, and the adoption is found to be valid. (!) (!) - The Court recognized that while formal giving and taking ceremonies are important, long recognition and continuous treatment as son, along with documentary evidence, can substantiate adoption where direct oral proof is unavailable due to the lapse of time. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Documentary evidence (admission in school, deposition statements, nominations, business filings, and statements by Debi Prasad and others) support the adoption, including admissions that Shyam Behari Lal was the son of Gopal Das and the firm was run with him as partner/survivor. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The suit for possession/title by Debi Prasad as nearest heir was dismissed because the adoption was held valid, affecting the heirship and property rights. (!) (!)

What is the validity of the adoption of Shyam Behari Lal by Gopal Das?

What evidence is required to establish an adoption under Hindu law, and how does long-standing recognition affect proof?

What is the outcome of the appeal regarding the adoption and consequent title to the suit properties?


Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- In this appeal by special leave though number of contentions were taken, we have not thought it necessary to go into all of them as in our judgment High Court s conclusion that Shyam Behari Lal (1st defendant) had been validly adopted by Gopal Das is well founded.

2. The suit from which this appeal arises is for possession of the suit properties on the basis of title. The 1st plaintiff Debi Prasad claims title to the properties as the nearest heir to Gopal Das, his maternal uncle who died in 1934. The 2nd plaintiff is an alienee from the 1st plaintiff.

3. In order to properly understand the controversy in the present case, it is necessary to have before us the family pedigree. The admitted pedigree is as shown below:

4. The common ancestor of the family was Lajja Ram who died in 1874. We are now concerned with the branch of Kedar Nath, the father of Gopal Das who died on February 18, 1934. His widow Bhagwan Dei died on October 19, 1934. The contention of Debi Prasad is that Gopal Das had separated from his family; he died intestate and, therefore, being the nearest heir of Gopal Das, he is entitled to the properties left by Gopal Das. The plaintiff s claim was resi




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top