Valid Hindu adoption requires real giving and taking; customary adoption cannot override the statutory scheme after the 1956 Act.

A valid Hindu adoption requires a real ceremony of giving and taking with the intent to transfer the child from the birth family to the adoptive family, and the evidence here supported that conclusion. The deed and oral testimony showed a completed adoption, not merely an appointment of an heir, because the child was described as an adopted son and the document reflected an intention to create a legal adoption. After the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 4 excludes any custom or usage inconsistent with the Act, so customary adoption cannot survive where it conflicts with the statutory scheme. Section 11(vi) is satisfied when the adoption ceremony is genuinely performed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adoption was validly made by a ceremony of giving and taking with the requisite intent to transfer the child from the family of birth to the adoptive family, and whether customary adoption could survive after the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Analysis: The deed of adoption and the oral evidence showed that the child was taken in adoption by a formal ceremony of giving and taking, which is the operative part of a valid adoption and is itself symbolic of a complete transfer from one family to another. The document, read as a whole, referred to the child as the adopted son and showed an intention to make a legal adoption, not merely to appoint an heir according to prior custom. After the commencement of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 4 abrogated any custom or usage inconsistent with the Act, leaving no room for customary adoption. The requirement in Section 11(vi) is satisfied when a real adoption ceremony is performed, because the intent to transfer is inherent in the actual giving and taking; the evidence in the case also clearly supported that conclusion.

Conclusion: The adoption was valid and the finding that it was only a customary appointment of an heir was incorrect.

---