Back
Allahbad High Court
M.P.MEHROTRA
Sushil Chandra - Appellant
Versus
Bhoop Kunwar - Respondent
Decided On : 04/18/1977
HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - S. 16 - ADOPTION - PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - UNDUE INFLUENCE AND FRAUD - REGISTERED ADOPTION DEED - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - S. 101 - ADMISSION IN REGISTERED DEED - VALUE AND SIGNIFICANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the defendant No. 1 Sushil Chandra was not the adopted son of Raghunath Prasad. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. The defendant No. 1 appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court erred in placing the burden of proof on the defendants to prove the actual ceremony of giving and taking in adoption and that the adopted boy performed the last rites of Raghunath Prasad in his capacity as his adopted son. The plaintiffs failed to prove the allegation of fraud and undue influence, and the document in question should be treated as proved. The lower appellate court shall decide the appeal bearing in mind the presumption under S. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower appellate court erred in placing the burden of proof on the defendants to prove the actual ceremony of giving and taking in adoption and that the adopted boy performed the last rites of Raghunath Prasad in his capacity as his adopted son? 2. Whether the plaintiffs failed to prove the allegation of fraud and undue influence, and the document in question should be treated as proved?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The mandatory presumption under S. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, casts a duty on the courts to draw a mandatory presumption to the effect that whenever there is a registered document "purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption," then the adoption has been made in compliance with the provision of this Act unless and until it is disproved. 2. The plaintiffs failed to prove the allegation of fraud and undue influence, and the document in question should be treated as proved.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed; case remanded.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a dispute over the validity of an adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, specifically concerning the presumption of validity under Section 16 (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that Section 16 creates a mandatory presumption that a registered document recording an adoption, signed by both the giver and the taker, is in compliance with the Act unless disproved (!) (!) .
The lower appellate court erroneously placed the burden of proof on the defendants to establish the actual ceremony of adoption and related last rites, contrary to the statutory presumption (!) .
The document in question was a registered adoption deed, which the plaintiffs did not deny bearing the thumb impression of the adoptive father, but they alleged it was obtained through fraud and undue influence. The burden of proving such allegations was on the plaintiffs (!) (!) .
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their allegations of fraud and undue influence, and the evidence on record supported the validity of the adoption document (!) .
The court highlighted that the presumption under Section 16 is fundamental and must be given due weight, and its disregard by the lower appellate court rendered its judgment legally flawed (!) (!) .
The case was remanded to the lower appellate court for a fresh decision, with the direction to consider the evidence in light of the presumption under Section 16 and decide whether the adoption was valid (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law (!) .
Would you like a specific legal opinion or further assistance regarding this case?
2. A pedigree has been set out in the trial Courts judgment and from the same it will be seen that the plaintiffs based their claim as daughter or daughters issues of one Ram Sahai. It is alleged that Ram Sahais three sons, namely, Bhoop Ram, Phool Chand and Raghunath Prasad, all remained bachelors in their lives and after the death of Bhoop Ram and Phool Chand, the remaining son Raghunath Prasad became the sole owner in possession of the property left by Ram Sahai Raghunath Prasad died on 3rd October, 1963. The plaintiff No. 1 claims succession on the basis of being the real sister of Raghunath Prasad and the plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 claimed succession on the basis of being sons of the other sisters of Raghunath Prasad. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property left by Raghunath Prasad but when they were seeking to get their names mutated in the record in their favour, the defendant No. 2, Krishna Behari, made objection that his son Sushil Chandra alias Sallu the defendant No. 1 had been adopted by Raghunath Prasad and hence the plaintiffs names could not be mutated. The plaintiffs questioned the factum of adoption and denied the validity of the same. They alleged that the defendant No. 2 Krishna Behari was the Lekhpal in the village and be used to live in a portion of the house of Raghunath Prasad as a licensee and he practised undue influence and fraud on Raghunath Prasad with a view to get some writing purporting to show the adoption of Krishna Beharis son by Raghunath Prasad.
3. The defendants contested the claim. They denied that the plaintiffs were related to Raghunath Prasad in the manner as suggested in the plaint and it was alleged that they bore no relationship and were not heirs or entitled to succeed to Raghunath Prasad. The defendants affirmed that Raghunath Prasad had taken in adoption the defendant No. 1, Sushil Chandra alias Sallu, and the said adoption was not brought about by undue influence or fraud as alleged in the plaint. It was not invalid for the reasons alleged by the plaintiffs. There was a registered adoption deed dated 4th February, 1960 and the said document was not bad or vitiated on the grounds alleged in the plaint. It was claimed that the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the property left by Raghunath Prasad. Certain other pleas were taken which it is not necessary to notice for the purpose of this appeal.
4. The trial court framed the necessary issues and tried the suit. The adoption of defendant No. 1 by Raghunath Prasad was held to be established and the suit was, therefore, dismissed. In the lower appellate Court, the contention was that the defendants had failed to prove the factum of adoption and the trial Courts verdict was incorrect. The lower appellate Court accepted the said contention and allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suit.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant had invited my attention to S. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which lays down as under;
"Whenever any 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 court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved."
6. He has further placed reliance on Bhola Chaube v. Man Matun Chau
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
