SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Mad) 1242

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Thavamani – Appellant
Versus
The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Devakottai and another – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. E.M. Sundarsena Nachiappan, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. V. Raghavachari, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

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 (!) .

What is the burden of proof for establishing adoption in this case?

What circumstances were considered to rebut the claim of adoption?

What was the final distribution of the compensation amount and who bears costs?


Judgment :

.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























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top