Adoption and Property Transfers Upheld; Possession Restored to Plaintiff and Costs Awarded in Multiple Suits

HC held the adoption of the adopted person valid, finding requisite giving-and-taking established by presence of the natural father, adoptive mother, the adopted person, priests and an adoption deed; vague denials by defendants were insufficient. HC also upheld transfers to the plaintiff, finding the sale/exchange deeds admitted and consideration proven by regular account entries and the defendant's signature not properly challenged. HC set aside lower courts' decrees, granted possession of the plaint properties to the plaintiff and awarded costs in all three courts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the adoption of Defendant 6, Shankar.
2. Validity of the transfer of property by Shankar to the Plaintiff.
3. Consideration for the transfer of property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Adoption of Defendant 6, Shankar:
The Defendants challenged the adoption on two grounds: (1) Trimbak had expressly prohibited his widow from adopting, and (2) Girjabai, the widow, was only 13 years old at the time and had not attained years of discretion. The first Court found against the Defendants on both points, and this finding was not challenged in the lower appellate Court or before the High Court.

The Defendants' written statement ambiguously denied the adoption, stating, "It is denied that thirteen years old Mt. Girja took thirty years old Shankar in adoption with due rites and ceremonies as stated by the Plaintiff." The Court noted that such a vague pleading should not have been allowed. The issue framed by the Court was also vague, asking whether Defendant 6 was taken in adoption according to Hindu law, without specifying the necessary ceremonies.

The Plaintiff argued that in the case of Sudras, religious ceremonies are not essential; mere giving and taking are sufficient. The Privy Council had previously held that the presence of the natural father, the adoptive mother, and the boy before the Sub-Registrar, admitting the execution of a deed of adoption, was enough to establish giving and taking.

The Plaintiff only needed to plead the fact of adoption, and the law would infer that all necessary ceremonies were performed. The Defendants' denial of unessential ceremonies did not challenge the legality of the adoption. The first Court decided the case on the ground that there was no giving and taking, but this was not pleaded as an issue.

The High Court examined whether there was the necessary giving and taking, which is a question of fact. The lower appellate Court's judgment was not accepted as proper. The first Court's judgment was careful but incorrect in law, requiring physical giving and taking, which is not necessary. The presence of the natural father, the adoptive mother, the boy, two priests, and the execution of an adoption deed indicated that the necessary giving and taking occurred. The High Court believed the witnesses and held that the necessary words were used, fulfilling the legal requirements for a valid adoption.

2. Validity of the Transfer of Property by Shankar to the Plaintiff:
The lower appellate Court questioned whether consideration passed for the transfer. The sale deed and exchange deed were registered and admitted by Defendant 6. The challenge to the consideration was made by strangers, not the parties to the deeds. The law does not allow strangers with no interest to challenge transactions on the ground of lack of consideration.

The Plaintiff produced account books showing the payment of Rs. 1000, signed by the Defendant. The lower Court's finding that this was not proved was incorrect. The Plaintiff swore to the signature, and no cross-examination challenged it. The High Court held that the consideration was proved and accepted the Plaintiff's evidence.

3. Consideration for the Transfer of Property:
The lower appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiff's evidence of consideration, calling it "the nursery tale of Soloman Grundy." The High Court found this dismissal improper. The Plaintiff's account books, found to be regularly kept, showed an entry for the payment, signed by the Defendant. The Defendant did not challenge this signature in cross-examination, which would have required him to prove it. The High Court held that the consideration was adequately proved.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the decrees of the lower Courts and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting possession of the plaint properties with costs in all three Courts. The adoption of Shankar was held valid, and the transfer of property to the Plaintiff was upheld with consideration proved.

---