The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not mandate an adoption ceremony for the validity of an adoption; a registered adoption deed carries a presumption of validity, placing the burden of proof on the challenger.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is by first defendant in O.S.No.37/1981 on the file of the Munsiff, Ankola, challenging the divergent finding recorded by the First Appellate Court.

2. The plaintiff has sought for partition and separate possession of 6/10th share in the suit schedule properties and sought a declaration that the defendant No.1 is not the adopted son of the deceased Vasu. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and consequently, granted the relief of declaration as well as the partition.

3. This appeal was admitted on 20/3/2014, to answer the following substantial question of law:

"i) Whether the first appellate Court has committed a serious error in ignoring the material evidence in order to come to the conclusion that the adoption of defendant No.1 is not proved in accordance with law?

ii) Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is perverse and illegal for not considering the material evidence placed on record?"

4. Certain facts necessary to answer the aforementioned substantial questions of law can be summerised as under:-

5. The genealogy of the parties is under:

6. One Venkanna was the propositus. He had two sons Hammanna and Vasu. The elder son Hammanna died in the year 1939. Vasu died in the year 1975. Hammanna had two children, Mahadev-the first plaintiff and Sannamma-the second plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, Vasu died issueless and after the death of Vasu a dispute arose as first defendant claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased Vasu. Hence, the suit is filed challenging the adoption.

7. The first defendant contested the suit and claimed to be the adopted son of late Vasu under the registered deed dtd. 15/9/1970 after the demise of Vasu died on 3/10/1975 and the first defendant succeeded to the properties of Vasu as a sole adopted son of Vasu.

8. The trial Court has held that the adoption is proved and dismissed the suit.

9. Appeal is filed by plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff no.2 has died by that time. Plaintiff no.1 is said to be the sole heir of deceased plaintiff no.2. In the appeal filed by plaintiff no.1, it is held that the adoption is outcome of fraud and the suit is decreed.

10. Aggrieved by the divergent finding, the first defendant is in second appeal.

11. Sri Sangram Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following contentions:-

i) The adoption is duly registered, and under Sec. 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 ('Act, 1956' for short) and there is a presumption in favour of adoption. The burden is on the plaintiff who disputed the adoption to prove that it is invalid. Burden is not discharged.

ii) The adoption does not mandate the attestation by the witnesses. The examination of attesting witness is not necessary to prove the adoption. If at all there is any discrepancy in the evidence of attesting witness, the said discrepancy does not lead to the conclusion that the adoption is invalid.

iii) Since Vasu the adoptive father had no issues, he had compelling reasons to adopt defendant No.1, and accordingly, he adopted first defendant.

iv) The First Appellate Court erred in holding that the adoption ceremony is not established. After the commencement of the Act, 1956, the performance of the adoption ceremony is not a mandatory requirement. The adoption in favour the first defendant is in compliance with the requirement of the Act, 1956.

12. Sri Srinivas Naik, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 raised the following contentions:-

i) The adoption ceremony has not taken place and the same is not proved.

ii) The adoptive father attended the school on the date of alleged adoption and there is no way he could have attended the adoption ceremony given the distance between the home and the school.

iii) The attesting witnesses to the adoption have not supported the case of adoption.

iv) The alleged adoption deed also reveals that the adoptive father has executed a Will in favour of the brother of the adopted son.

v) The