IMPORTANT POINT
If a person is treated as adopted for a long duration of time cannot be ignored, it by itself may in the circumstances carry a presumption in favour of adoption.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal arises out of order dated 11th August, 2014 of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 173 of 2005. The High Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant for declaration to the effect that the appellant was the adopted daughter of late Sadhu Ram and was thus, entitled to her share in the suit property.

4. The trial Court relied upon evidence of the appellant including her own testimony as PW-1 and other oral and documentary evidence showing that she was duly adopted by late Sadhu Ram. The High Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court relying upon Section 11 (vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to the effect that evidence of actual giving and taking in adoption was a mandatory requirement which was not proved in the present case which was not proved in the present case.

5. We find that PW-3 Harbans Lal, uncle of the appellant categorically deposed about the adoption ceremony though he was not present in the said ceremony. Even if the said evidence is ignored, there is undisputed material to show that the appellant was treated as adopted daughter by late Sadhu Ram for a long time. The trial court summed up the issue as follows:

“.......I am unable to appreciate the evidence of the defendant no. 1 in the light of the documentary evidence, being the school record and various other documents which duly reflect her father’s name as Sh. Sadhu Ram, having been recorded at the instance of Sadhu Ram himself. Under such circumstances, I find that defendant’s evidence just a bald repudiation that the plaintiff was not the adopted daughter and was merely residing with her uncle PW-3 who was at one time a tenant in the suit property. This fact is also belied by the fact that initially when the plaintiff was brought to Delhi, the suit property consisted of only one room. Her uncle was induced as a tenant later on upon further construction of the building. Even after he left in 1969, she continued to reside in the same premises with her mother Smt. Shankari Devi. In fact she passed out from her school in 1976 and reliance has been made on records subsequent to 1969 evidencing her continuance of stay in the suit property. All these factors prove that plaintiff had been taken in adoption by Sadhu Ram and Shankari Devi.”

6. We find that the approach adopted by the High Court is unsustainable. The evidence of appellant-plaintiff itself is categorical that she was treated as the adopted child of late Sadhu Ram which is also corroborated by her school record and her marriage having been settled by late Sadhu Ram as his own daughter as per evidence of PW-2 Vijay Kapoor.

7. We cannot lose sight of the principle that though the factum of adoption and its validity has to be duly proved and formal ceremony of giving and taking is an essential ingredient for a valid adopted, long duration of time during which a person is treated as adopted cannot be ignored and by itself may in the circumstances carry a presumption in favour adoption. In this regard, we may refer to the observations of this Court in L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by LRs. vs. Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others, 1970 (1) SCC 677.

“9. There is no doubt that the burden of proving satisfactorily that he was given by his natural father and received by Gopal Das as his adoptive son is on Shyam Behari Lal. But as observed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Rajendrao Nath Holdar vs. Jogendro Nath Banerjee [14 Moor’s Indian Appeals p.67] that although the person who pleads that he had been adopted is bound to prove his title as adopted son, as a fact yet from the long period during which he had been received as an adopted son, every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove such fact was to be favourably entertained, and that the case was analogous to that in which the legitimacy of a person in possession had been acquiesced in for a considerable time