TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the statutory presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in respect of a registered adoption deed is rebuttable, and whether the concurrent findings disbelieving the adoption called for interference.
Analysis: Section 16 creates a presumption in favour of compliance with the Act when a registered document purporting to record an adoption is produced, but the express words "unless and until it is disproved" make the presumption rebuttable and not conclusive. The Court examined the surrounding evidence, including documents and conduct inconsistent with the claimed adoption, and noted that the requirement of actual giving and taking in adoption under Section 11(vi) is essential for a valid adoption. In view of the evidence relied upon by the courts below, the concurrent finding that the adoption stood rebutted was not shown to be perverse. The limited scope of interference in appeal was also kept in view.
Conclusion: The presumption under Section 16 is rebuttable, the adoption was not established on the evidence, and no interference with the concurrent findings was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the claim based on adoption was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: The presumption attached to a registered adoption deed under Section 16 is rebuttable, and concurrent factual findings rebutting that presumption will not be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
