Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 1125
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Ram Kripal Shaw - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Prasad Shaw – Respondent
Appeal No : S.A. No. 293 of 2005
Decided On : Sep 03, 2010
Dhruba Bhattacharya, Uttiya Roy, Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, Tarak Nath Haider, Supratim Dhar, Debabrata Mondal
A "Godnama" (deed of adoption) not bearing the endorsement/signature/L.T.I. of the natural father is suspicious and cannot be relied upon to prove adoption.
Headnote:
ADOPTION - FACT OF ADOPTION - EVIDENCE - "GODNAMA" - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT - "GODNAMA" NOT BEARING ENDORSEMENT/SIGNATURE/L.T.I. OF NATURAL FATHER - EFFECT - ESTOPPEL - ATTESTATION BY ITSELF NEITHER CREATES ESTOPPEL NOR IMPLIES CONSENT - "GODNAMA" HELD TO BE SUSPICIOUS - ADOPTION NOT PROVED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of Jawaharlal Shaw and sought to establish his claim to the suit properties left by Jawaharlal Shaw. The defendants, nephews of Jawaharlal Shaw, contested the suit, denying the adoption and claiming that the properties were purchased with the joint money of Jawaharlal Shaw and his brothers, the defendants' fathers.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his adoption by Jawaharlal Shaw. The court found that the "Godnama" (deed of adoption) produced by the plaintiff was suspicious and did not bear the endorsement/signature/L.T.I. of the plaintiff's natural father. The court also noted that the plaintiff had executed documents claiming to be the son of his natural father after the alleged adoption, which contradicted his claim of adoption by Jawaharlal Shaw.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the adopted son of Jawaharlal Shaw. 2. Whether the "Godnama" produced by the plaintiff was a valid deed of adoption.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. For a valid adoption, there must be a ceremony of giving and taking, and the natural parent should hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent should receive him. 2. A "Godnama" is not a formal document required for adoption, but if executed, it should bear the endorsement/signature/L.T.I. of the natural father to signify his consent in giving his son in adoption. 3. Attestation by itself neither creates estoppel nor implies consent. It proves no more than the signature of an executing party has been attached to a document in the presence of a witness.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court did not suffer from any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence on record and did not call for any interference by the court of Second Appeal.
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.
1. THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 27th April, 2004 passed by learned Fast Track Court, Sealdah, in Title Appeal No.01 of 2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 128 of 1986.
2. BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with said judgment of confirmation the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Second Appeal. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is that he was adopted by Jawaharlal Shaw as his son in or about 1940 and that Jawaharlal Shaw died intestate in 1960. After the death of Jawaharlal Shaw the appellant/plaintiff became absolute owner of the properties including the suit properties left behind by Jawaharlal Shaw and the defendants being nephew of Jawaharlal Shaw had no right, title or interest over the properties of Jawaharlal Shaw. The defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and that on that score appellant/plaintiff filed the said Title Suit being No.128 of 1986.
Defendant No.4 Manoj Kumar Barman filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff but he did not take part in any way in the further proceedings of the suit.
3. REMAINING defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that Jawaharlal Shaw never adopted plaintiff as his son and that plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the properties left behind by Jawaharlal Shaw and that in reality those properties were purchased in the name of Jawaharlal Shaw with the joint money of Jawaharlal Shaw and his brothers namely Motilal Shaw and Hiralal Shaw who were fathers of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiff was a relation of the present defendants and was permitted to stay in one room in the first floor of the suit premises as a licensee by Hiralal Shaw, the father of defendant No.1 and later on after death of Hiralal Shaw the defendants renewed the said license. It was further case of the contesting defendants that plaintiff was a son of Ram Prasad Shaw and that there was never any valid adoption in 1940 or at any point of time by Jawaharlal Shaw as alleged and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.
4. ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed several issues including an issue as to whether the plaintiff was the adopted son of Jawaharlal Shaw. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit as appellant plaintiff failed to establish that he was the adopted son of Jawaharlal Shaw. When appellant /plaintiff preferred the first appeal being Title Appeal No.01 of 2001, it was also dismissed on contest with the same observations. The substantial question of law in this appeal may be framed as follows: (i) Whether learned 1st Appellate Court came to a perverse finding that appellant/plaintiff was not the adopted son of Jawaharlal Shaw by not appreciating the evidence on record in their proper perspective.
Learned Advocated Mr. Dhruba Bhattacharya for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that in order to establish the claim of the appellant/plaintiff that he was the adopted son of Jawaharlal Shaw, he filed various documents including 'Godnama' dated 5th October, 1951 which was nothing but an acknowledgement of adoption of appellant/plaintiff by Jawaharlal Shaw, but both the learned Lower Courts failed to appreciate the said document and other evidence on record in their proper perspective and came to a wrong finding that the appellant/plaintiff could not establish that he was adopted son of Jawaharlal Shaw.
5. IN this connection he has referred case laws reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court page (Bhagwan Sharma vs. Bani Ghosh), 1996(7) SCC 389 (Kochukakkada Aboobacker vs. Attah Kasim and Ors.) and 1993 (1) CLJ page 193 (Full Bench) to impress upon this Court that if Trial Court and First Appellate Court could not consider relevant documents in proper perspective then
