Registered adoption deed and proved ceremony create a presumption of valid adoption; alleged restrictive family custom must be strictly proved.

A special family custom restricting adoption of a male child from outside the family was not proved, because a custom in derogation of general law must be ancient, certain, continuous, reasonable, and established by clear evidence. The burden of pleading and proof remained on the party asserting it, and limited past instances of intra-family adoptions did not establish a binding prohibition. A registered adoption deed, supported by evidence of giving and taking, a religious ceremony, attesting witnesses and photographs, raised a statutory presumption of valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. That presumption was not rebutted, so the adoption was held legally valid and the trial court's decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a special family custom barring adoption of a male child from outside the family was proved; and (ii) whether the registered adoption deed and adoption ceremony established a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether a special family custom barring adoption of a male child from outside the family was proved.

Analysis: Custom in derogation of the general law must be ancient, certain, continuous, reasonable, and proved by clear and unambiguous evidence. The party relying on such a custom bears the burden of pleading and proving it. Mere instances of four adoptions over 375 years, where a male child was taken from within the family, did not by themselves establish a binding custom prohibiting adoption from outside the family, especially when there was no reference to such a prohibition in the notice, pleadings, or supporting documents.

Conclusion: The alleged custom was not proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the registered adoption deed and adoption ceremony established a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Analysis: A registered adoption deed carries a statutory presumption of validity, and the burden to rebut that presumption lies on the challenger. The adoption was supported by evidence of giving and taking, religious ceremony, registration of the deed, and attesting witnesses. The document had to be construed as a whole, with substance prevailing over form, and technical objections could not defeat an otherwise proved adoption when no effective rebuttal was led. The evidence of the witnesses and photographs was also sufficient to support the adoption.

Conclusion: The adoption was valid and the presumption under the Act was not rebutted.

Final Conclusion: The appellate findings rejecting the adoption were unsustainable, and the trial court's decree stood restored on the footing that the adoption was legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered adoption deed, supported by evidence of due ceremony, raises a presumption of valid adoption that can be displaced only by clear rebuttal, and a claimed special custom derogating from the general law must be strictly and satisfactorily proved.

---