Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The judgment centers on whether the consent of Dhapubai, as wife, to the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji was validly given under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and whether mere presence at adoption ceremonies constitutes consent; the Court holds presence cannot be treated as consent. (!) (!) (!) - The case discusses whether the adoption was valid and whether Dhapubai’s consent is required and proved, and if not, whether the adoptive status of Ghisalal affects rights in the family and related gifts/will; the Court reverses lower findings and holds consent not proven. (!) (!) (!) - The Supreme Court sets out the purposive interpretation of Section 7, clarifying that consent must be in writing or demonstrated by affirmative action, not by silence or mere presence; adoption without wife’s consent is void. (!) (!) - The Court finds the concurrent findings on the validity of adoption and related transferrals/gift deeds to be perverse due to lack of proper evidence, and sets aside the decrees, dismissing Ghisalal’s suit for partition. (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes that a wife’s consent is mandatory and cannot be inferred from conduct or non-challenge, aligning with Kashibai v. Parwatibai and related precedents. (!) (!) (!) - The final outcome is that Civil Appeals 6375-6376 of 2002 are allowed; the suit by Ghisalal is dismissed; corresponding appeals are disposed of with costs. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?