2017 (11) TMI 1868 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms High Court decision on custom of adoption in Jain community.

RATANLAL @ BABULAL CHUNILAL SAMSUKA Versus SUNDARABAI GOVARDHANDASSAMSUKA (D.) TH. LRS. & ORS

RATANLAL @ BABULAL CHUNILAL SAMSUKA Versus SUNDARABAI GOVARDHANDASSAMSUKA (D.) TH. LRS. & ORS - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the person who alleges the existence of a custom need not prove the same because it is judicially acceptedRs.2. Whether the Appellant could plead and prove the factum of adoptionRs.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Whether the person who alleges the existence of a custom need not prove the same because it is judicially acceptedRs.The Appellant argued that the custom of adopting married men in the Jain community is judicially accepted, thus requiring no further proof. The Court acknowledged that Jains are governed by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which mandates that customs must be continuously and uniformly observed to gain legal force. The Court referenced Section 3(a) of the Act, which defines 'custom' and Section 10, which outlines conditions for adoption, including the prohibition of adopting married persons unless a custom permits it.The Court emphasized that customs must be proven with certainty, continuity, long usage, and reasonability. It cited precedents, such as Thakur Gokal Chand v. Pravin Kumari, to highlight that customs must be proven with clear and unambiguous evidence. The Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the custom of adopting married men in the Jain community. The Court concluded that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof required to establish such a custom, thus ruling against the Appellant on this issue.2. Whether the Appellant could plead and prove the factum of adoptionRs.The Appellant's claim of adoption by late Govardhandas was scrutinized based on the evidence presented. The Court noted that the Appellant's evidence primarily consisted of his testimony and that of a priest who allegedly performed the adoption ceremony. The Court stressed that the burden of proving adoption is heavy, especially in the absence of documentary evidence, and should be free from suspicion of fraud.The Court reviewed the testimonies of various witnesses, including the Appellant and the priest, finding significant contradictions. For instance, the priest's statement about the adoption ceremony contradicted the Appellant's testimony regarding the seating on the lap of the adoptive father. Additionally, the Appellant continued to use his biological father's name in official documents, further casting doubt on the adoption claim.The Court also noted that the Appellant failed to plead the existence of the custom of adopting married men in his written statement, which is crucial as parties are governed by their pleadings. The trial court had incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the Plaintiff, whereas it should have been on the Appellant to prove the adoption.Given the inconsistencies and lack of cogent evidence, the Court found that the Appellant failed to prove the factum of adoption. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the Appellant was not the adopted son of late Govardhandas.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the Appellant failed to prove the custom of adopting married men in the Jain community and the factum of his adoption by late Govardhandas. The judgment emphasized the necessity of clear and unambiguous evidence to establish customs and adoptions, especially when they significantly alter succession rights.