Proof of Will and adoption requires strict statutory compliance; registration alone does not establish validity or inheritance rights.

A Will is proved only by compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872; registration alone is not enough. Where attesting witnesses are not examined, reliable proof of attestation and signature is still required, and suspicious circumstances may defeat the document. The text states that these requirements were not met, so the Will dated 03.05.1982 was invalid. For adoption, a registered deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 creates only a rebuttable presumption, and the mandatory requirements of Section 11, including actual giving and taking, must also be proved. The text states that the adoption was not proved and the presumption was rebutted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Will dated 03.05.1982 was duly proved and valid; (ii) Whether the registered adoption deed and the alleged adoption of 18.04.1982 were proved in accordance with law.

Issue (i): Whether the Will dated 03.05.1982 was duly proved and valid

Analysis: A Will must be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Registration by itself does not establish validity. At least one attesting witness must ordinarily be examined, and where that is not possible, the requirements of Section 69 must still be satisfied by reliable proof of an attesting witness's handwriting and the executant's signature. The evidence adduced did not satisfy these requirements. The attesting witnesses were not examined, the alternative proof under Section 69 was not established by competent evidence, and the testimony of the scribe and other witnesses created further doubt as to execution and attestation. Suspicious circumstances also surrounded the document, including the unexplained exclusion of a close family heir and inconsistencies regarding the circumstances in which the Will was prepared and signed.

Conclusion: The Will dated 03.05.1982 was not proved in accordance with law and was held to be invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the registered adoption deed and the alleged adoption of 18.04.1982 were proved in accordance with law

Analysis: A registered adoption deed raises only a rebuttable presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. A valid adoption must also satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 11, including the actual giving and taking of the child in adoption. The evidence did not convincingly establish the ceremony of adoption, the identity of the woman shown in the photographs, or the actual giving and taking. The witnesses were partisan or uncertain on material particulars, the documentary versions were inconsistent as to the place of adoption, and the surrounding circumstances rendered the alleged adoption improbable. The presumption attached to the registered deed was therefore successfully rebutted.

Conclusion: The alleged adoption was not proved in accordance with law and the registered adoption deed did not confer any right on the claimant.

Final Conclusion: The claimant failed to establish either the Will or the adoption, and therefore acquired no right or share in the suit properties; the High Court's decision was affirmed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered Will or adoption deed does not by itself establish validity; the propounder must prove due execution, attestation, and the mandatory statutory requirements, and a rebuttable presumption arising from registration can be displaced by credible evidence and suspicious circumstances.

---