A presumption of adoption arises under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, when a document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any Court purporting to record an adoption made, and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption. The onus is on the person challenging the adoption to disprove the presumption.

Judgement

MISRA, J. :- Annapurna (plaintiff) is the widow of Nilmoni Sahu who died on 22-7-1960. Narendra (defdt. No. 1) a minor is the natural-born son of Lokenath (defendant no. 5) and Ratnamala (defendant no. 6). Labanga (defendant no. 3) is the sister's daughter of the plaintiff and lived with her from early childhood. Anjali (defendant no. 4), a minor is the daughter of defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 2 is the deity Shri Shri Shri Radha Nilamadhaba Mahaprabhu installed by Nilmoni.

2. Plaintiffs case is that the 5th defendant is a distant agnatic nephew of Nilmoni and was very intimate with him. After Nilmoni's death he looked after her affairs and wanted execution of a power-of-attorney. She is illiterate. Having no independent advice, she executed a power-of-attorney in favour of the 5th defendant on 11-8-60. From whispers in the locality, she learnt that she had parted with all her properties and had adopted the 1st defendant as her son. She procured certified copies (Exs. B, C and D) executed by her as power-of-attorney. When the certified copies were read over and explained to her, she found that those documents did not constitute the alleged power-of-attorney. Ex. B purported to be a deed of adoption and gift in favour of the 1st defendant. Ex. C was a deed of gift in favour of the 2nd defendant, and Ex. D was in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants. The suit was filed for a declaration that the 1st defendant was not the adopted son of her husband or herself and Ex. B is not binding as a deed of gift. She also asked for a, declaration that Exs. C and F were invalid and not binding on her.

The 2nd defendant did not file any written statement. The 3rd and 4th defendants filed a written statement fully supporting the plaintiffs case. The suit, proceeded ex parte against them. Only the 1st, 5th and 6th defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. They accepted the position that the 5th defendant was intimate with Nilmoni during his life time and that after his death he looked after the affairs of the plaintiff. Their case, however, is that Nilmoni during his life time expressed a desire to adopt the 1st defendant, who is the second son of the 5th defendant. For some reason or other, the actual adoption had not taken place when Nilmoni died at an age of about 70 years. Plaintiff was the second wife of Nilmoni and by the time of his death was about 60 years old. She felt helpless and wanted to fulfil the wishes of her husband by adopting the 1st defendant. She was not pulling on well with her nearer agnates. After the Sudhi ceremony was over, she adopted the 1st defendant on 8-8-60 and there was giving and taking ceremony. In recognition of the factum of adoption, she executed the original of Ex. B on 11-8-60 whereby she accepted the 1st defendant as her adopted son and transferred certain properties to him by way of gift. The contesting defendants accept the plaintiffs case that the 3rd defendant was living with Nilmoni and the plaintiff from her early childhood and that they had given her in marriage. As she was the foster daughter, plaintiff wanted a house to be gifted to her. Accordingly, she transferred one of the houses consisting of two sadalas of thatched houses by a registered deed of gift the certified copy of which is Ex. D. The 2nd defendant had been installed by Nilmoni. Plaintiff wanted that certain properties should be set apart for the management and seba-puja of the deity and she accordingly executed the original of Ex. C on 11-8-60.

(2) The learned trial Court recorded the following findings :-

(a) Plaintiff is illiterate and aged, but she is otherwise worldly-wise. She had no independent advice in the matter of execution of the originals of Exs. B to D. Defendant No. 5 was not however in a position to dominate her will.

(b) Ex. B is not unconscionable. It was a sort of compromise and was not prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff. She executed the three documents to honour the wishes