SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
LAXMIBAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
BHAGWANTBUVA (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2003
Decided on : 29-1-2013.
AIR 2001 SC 938; (2008) 13 SCC 119; (2006) 13 SCC 627; AIR 2011 SC 3258 - Relied upon
AIR 1936 P.C. 147; AIR 1953 SC 201; AIR 1959 SC 1041; AIR 1968 SC 1299 - Referred
(b) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 3(a) - Only four adoption over a period of 375 years - In each case from the same family - Does not establish a custom - Might have been for convenience and keeping the property in the family - No bar or restriction on adoption from outside family established - Even in the letter requesting donor family not to give their son in adoption no such custom mentioned - A negative fact cannot be proved by adducing positive evidence. (Paras 14 and 15)
(c) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Adopted child 8 years of age - Adoptive mother 70 years old - Adoption deed duly registered - Presumed to be valid not rebutted - Adoption valid. (Para 15)
(d) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Adoption - Deed registered - Appellate courts invalidating same on mere technicalities - Natural parents signing as witness along with 7 other witnesses - No infirmity - Executers cannot be attesting witness to the document - Adoption in conformity of desire of late husband of the adoptive mother - Adoption deed held valid. (Para 27)
AIR 1959 SC 781; AIR 1963 SC 185; AIR 1965 SC 1738; AIR 1999 SC 2607; (2012) 6 SCC 613; (2007) 10 SCC 761; AIR 1970 SC 1286; (1998) 8 SCC 701; AIR 2011 SC 545 - Relied upon
(e) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Adoption - Correctness or authenticity of adoption deed not disputed - Adoption challenged on ground that natural parents have signed as witnesses along with other 7 witnesses and not executers of the deed - Photographer examined after 7 years of the event - Even then he indentifying and proving the photographs of the ceremony and persons present therein - Non-examination of other photographer immaterial as it is not number of witnesses that matters but the credibility of the witness - Intention of the parties gathered from the deed read as a whole - Adoption held valid. (Para 40)
AIR 1957 SC 614; AIR 1994 SC 1251; AIR 2004 SC 552; AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 100; AIR 2008 SC 1381; AIR 2010 SC 3638; (2011) 9 SCC 626; JT 2013( 1) SC 222; AIR 1994 SC 226; AIR 1998 SC 1328; AIR 2001 SC 3207; AIR 2005 SC 1096; AIR 1988 SC 1845; AIR 1951 SC 120; AIR 2008 SC 2296; AIR 1996 SC 2314; AIR 2001 SC 965; (2006) 3 SCC 224; (2001) 3 SCC 179; AIR 2008 SC 938; AIR 2002 SC 3206; (2011) 11 SCC 140 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed by exclusive rights owner to carry palki and padukas of Sri Sant Eknath Maharaj from Paithan to Pandharpur for restraining the respondents from putting any obstruction or interference in the exercise of their rights as also for declaration that adoption of a child by the exclusive owner of the rights was valid.
The suit was decreed by the trial court.
The first appellate court reversed the decree.
Second appeal was dismissed by High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Adoption is valid.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
B.S. Chauhan, J.:-
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2001, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in Second Appeal No. 906 of 1980, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1977, dismissing Civil Suit No. 52 of 1971, which stood allowed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.1977.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are :
(A) One Narayanbuva Gosavi, a descendant of Shri Sant Eknath Maharaj was vested with the exclusive right to carry the Palki and Padukas of Sri Sant Eknath Maharaj from Paithan to Pandharpur at the time of Ashadi Ekadashi. He died in 1951, leaving behind his widow, namely, Smt. Laxmibai. Krishnabuva. Brother of Narayanbuva had pre-deceased him leaving behind his widow, Smt. Gopikabai.
(B) After the death of Narayanbuva, the appellant Smt. Laxmibai, was vested with the exclusive right to carry the Palki and Padukas. The respondents herein, who are also descendants of Sri Sant Eknath Maharaj, served notice dated 6.5.1971 upon Shri Vasant Bhagwant Pandav, stating that he must not give his son Raghunath, aged 8 years, in adoption to Smt. Laxmibai.
(C) On 10.5.1971, some of the respondents herein, filed Civil Suit No. 47 of 1971 against Shri Vasant Bhagwant Pandav, Smt. Laxmibai and Smt. Gopikabai, restraining them from effectuating the adoption of Raghunath. The aforementioned suit was withdrawn subsequently, in September 1974. It was during the pendency of the said suit filed by the respondents, that on 11.5.1971, Raghunath was adopted by Smt. Laxmibai after the performance of all requisite ceremonies which were conducted in the presence of a huge crowd, wherein the process of giving and taking of the child by the parents of Raghunath and by Smt. Laxmibai respectively, was held. The ceremony was performed by a priest, and several photographs were also taken on this occasion. On the same day, an adoption deed was executed and registered in this respect, and the said deed was duly signed by seven witnesses. Owing to the fact that the respondents had tried to create some hindrance in the performance of the duties of the appellants, in relation to carrying the Palki and Padukas, Smt. Laxmibai and Smt. Gopikabai filed Suit No. 52 of 1971, against the respondents seeking a decree of perpetual injunction preventing them from causing any obstruction or interference in the exercise of their exclusive rights, on 14.6.1971.
(D) The suit was contested by the respondents and a large number of issues were framed. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the adoption of Raghunath by Smt. Laxmibai was valid; that the adoption deed was a legal document which could in fact, be relied upon; that the ceremony of giving and taking of the child and that performance of all other religious ceremonies was conducted ; and also that photographs taken at the time of adoption could be relied upon. The said adopted child Raghunath, inherited all the property of Smt. Laxmibai when she died before the trial of the suit even commenced. The inheritance was held to be valid, as it was held that there was no custom of adopting of a male child only from within the said family and, consequently, the adoption of Raghunath by Smt. Laxmibai from outside, was upheld.
(E) Aggrieved, the respondents preferred Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1977 and for certain reliefs, the appellants also filed a cross appeal. Various points were considered by the First Appellate Court, after which, the decree of the Civil Court was reversed vide judgment and decree dated 1.8.1980, by which it was held that the respondents had proved, that there did in fact exist a custom which prohibited the taking of a male child in adoption from outside. The adoption itself was suspicious as independent witnesses were not examined. The witnesses who proved the validity of the adop
Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah
Salekh Chand (Dead) thr. Lrs. v. Satya Gupta
Effuah Amissah v. Effuah Krabah
T. Saraswati Ammal v. Jagadambal
Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya
V.T.S. Chandrashekhara Mudaliar (Dead thr. Lrs.) v. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar
Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Deo v. Bansidhar Mohanty
Delta International Limited v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla
Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
Debi Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. v. Smt. Tribeni Devi
Atluri Brahmanandam (D), Thr. LRs. v. Anne Sai Bapuji
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614 - Relied upon [Para 30]
Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P.
Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal
Mahesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana
Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead)
Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.)
Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
Smt. Rajbir Kaur v. M/s. S. Chokosiri & Co.
Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narayan Singh
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by Lrs.
G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
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.