S.S.SUBRAMANI
Thavamani – Appellant
Versus
The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Devakottai and another – Respondent
Key Points: - The burden of proving an adoption rests on the person who asserts it, and is a heavy burden (!) (!) . - The court considered lack of adoption evidence, absence of formal adoption ceremony, and suspicious circumstances (e.g., only son) as factors against the adoption (!) (!) (!) . - The final decision: appellant entitled to 2/3 share and second respondent to 1/3 share; second respondent liable to pay costs for false claim (!) .
.1. This appeal is by the second claimant in L.A.C.P.No.30 of 1989, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga.
2. An area of 23 cents of land in Survey No.600/3-A was acquired by Government. Appellant as well as second respondent herein claimed right over the compensation amount.
3. Facts which have given rise to this Appeal may be summarized as follows:- The property originally belonged to one Chinnammal. Her husband’s name is Muthuraman. It is the case that Chinnammal has no issues, but she had a sister. That sister had a son, who is the father of appellant and second respondent. His name is Nallathambi. Second respondent is the only son of Nallathambi. While second respondent was about two years old, his mother died and thereafter Nallathambi married one Lakshmi through whom the appellant was born. As stated already, the property admittedly belonged to Chinnammal. She died sometime before 1965. Nallathambi also died sometime between 1975 and 1980.
4. In this case, the second respondent put forward a claim statement before the lower court contending that even while he was two years old, he was given in adoption to Chinnammal and he is the adopted son. It is
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.