Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J
Mary Joseph, W/o. Joseph J Karuvelil – Appellant
Versus
Thomas Joseph, S/o. Mathew Joseph – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Regular First Appeal is at the instance of defendant No.1 and additional 6th defendant in O.S.No.73/2005 on the files of the Principal Sub Judge, Alappuzha and they assail decree and judgment therein dated 30.11.2007.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendant No.1 and additional 6th defendant, the learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/1st plaintiff, learned counsel appearing for additional respondent Nos.8 and 9, and the learned counsel appearing for 6th respondent/5th defendant. Perused the pleadings and evidence.
3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as to their status before the trial court.
4. Plaintiffs, who are siblings of deceased Joseph J.Karuvelil, filed the suit claiming partition of plaint schedule Item Nos.1 to 6 properties belonged to Joseph J.Karuvelil after his death on 9.2.1990 in between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4. Since the 5th defendant purchased a portion of the plaint schedule property, he also got arrayed as a party in the suit.
5. On appearance, the 5th defendant filed written statement claiming right on the strength of sale deed No.3168/1995. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were set ex parte.
6. The 1st defendant
Adoption under Canon Law requires formal proof of the physical act of giving and taking, which was not established, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Adoption – Ceremony of adoption may vary depending upon circumstances of each case, but for a valid adoption there has to be ceremony of giving and taking of child in adoption.
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish valid adoption as per statutory requirements; registered deeds are rebuttable and do not eliminate the need for actual proof.
For a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the biological parents must give the child in adoption, and the adoptive parents must take the child, which was not proven in this c....
The court established that valid adoption requires proof of giving and taking by biological and adoptive parents, which was not demonstrated, leading to equal shares among heirs.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove adoption strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, including the con....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the adoption deed and the plaintiff's lack of locus standi to question the adoption.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and the physical act of giving and taking of adoption did not take place in acc....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
