2023 (11) TMI 1346 - SC - Indian Laws

Registration alone doesn't prove adoption validity when circumstances raise suspicions about ceremony authenticity

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of an adoption and will. The adoptive son claimed entitlement to property through a registered ... Validity of adopted will - Nalini Kanth was the adopted son of Venkubayamma or not - vailidity of registered Will executed by Venkubayamma - entitlement to possession of the suit properties based on the adoption and the Will - HELD THAT:- Mere registration of Ex. A9 Adoption Deed did not absolve the person asserting such adoption from proving that fact by cogent evidence and the person contesting it from adducing evidence to the contrary. It is in this respect that various suspicious circumstances attached to the adoption ceremony of 18.04.1982 assume significance. It is an admitted fact that Venkubayamma was residing ordinarily at Srikakulam, which is at a distance (98 miles/150 kms) from Berhampur. While so, PW 2, himself, stated that she did not invite any of her relations from Srikakulam to attend the adoption ceremony at Berhampur. Normally, such occasions would not be kept secret or confidential as an adoption would usually be made with much pomp and celebration. The clandestine manner in which the alleged adoption is stated to have taken place raises a doubt but the same has not been adequately explained. Further, no evidence was adduced to prove that relations between Venkubayamma and Kaliprasad, her grandson, had fallen out. The document also does not record any reasons as to why Venkubayamma was not happy with Kaliprasad, whose marriage she had performed in February 1982, just a few months earlier. Pasupuleti Anasuya (PW 1) who was to play a pivotal role as the guardian of the adopted child in the event of Venkubayamma's death, seems to have been absent at the adoption ceremony and no reason or explanation worth the name has been offered therefor. She, herself, admitted that she was not present when the actual 'giving and taking of the child in adoption' took place and that she is not seen in Exs. A2 to A4 photographs. Significantly, she never stated in clear terms that she was actually present at that time. Her brothers (PWs 2 and 3) also did not vouch for her presence at the adoption. If she was to play such an important role in the adopted child's life, her absence at the ceremony and in the photographs speaks volumes. The actual 'giving and taking' of the child in adoption, being an essential requisite Under Section 11(vi) of the Act of 1956, we find that there is no convincing evidence of that 'act' also in the case on hand. Interestingly, there are no pictures of the actual 'giving and taking' of the child in adoption. In Exs. A2 and A3, the purohit (PW 7) is seen standing or sitting behind the others and the same cannot be taken to be during the ceremony of 'giving and taking', as he would have stood/sat in front of them, chanting mantras and incantations as per shastras - Strangely, though a professional photographer (PW 4) was stated to have been engaged for the purpose of taking pictures at the adoption ceremony, he took only three photographs and no more. This parsimony is not explained. Further, PW 1 producing and marking Ex. A8 receipt, supposedly issued by PW 4 to the temple, with no explanation as to how it came into her possession, also does not inspire confidence. Ex. A9 Adoption Deed records the age of Venkubayamma as 70 years and states that she was desirous of taking a male child in adoption as she had no male issues. The document also records that the adoptive child would perform the annual shraddha ceremonies and offering of Pinda and water, as her natural son, to her ancestors. Nalini Kanth was aged less than a year when this adoption deed was executed whereas the adoptive mother, going by the document itself, was aged 70 years. Being of that age, it is strange that Venkubayamma would have expected this toddler to perform her obsequies after her death and such other ceremonies for her and her ancestors. Further, it is difficult to believe that a woman of such advanced years would willingly take on the responsibility of caring for an infant at that age. Conclusion - The adoption of Nalini Kanth by Venkubayamma on 18.04.1982 is not proved in accordance with law despite the registration of Ex. A9 Adoption Deed dated 20.04.1982. The very adoption, itself, is not believable, given the multitude of suspicious circumstances surrounding it. Nalini Kanth cannot, therefore, be treated as her heir by adoption. Further, as Ex. A10 Will dated 03.05.1982 was also not proved in accordance with law, it does not create any right in his favour. In consequence, Nalini Kanth is not entitled to claim any right or share in Venkubayamma's properties. The findings of the High Court to that effect, albeit for reasons altogether different, therefore, do not warrant interference. The judgment and decree of the High Court is confirmed - Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment were:Whether Nalini Kanth was the adopted son of Venkubayamma and whether the Adoption Deed dated 20.04.1982 was valid.Whether the registered Will dated 03.05.1982 executed by Venkubayamma was valid.Whether Nalini Kanth was entitled to possession of the suit properties based on the adoption and the Will.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Validity of the Adoption Deed dated 20.04.1982Legal Framework and Precedents: The validity of an adoption is governed by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, particularly Section 16, which presumes the validity of a registered adoption deed unless disproved. Section 11 of the same Act stipulates conditions for a valid adoption, including the actual giving and taking of the child.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that while the registration of the adoption deed raises a presumption of validity, this presumption is rebuttable. The Court emphasized that the actual giving and taking of the child is essential for a valid adoption.Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence presented included testimonies from family members and witnesses to the alleged adoption ceremony. However, the Court found several suspicious circumstances, such as the absence of close relatives at the ceremony and discrepancies in the testimonies and documents regarding the location of the adoption.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the presumption of validity under Section 16 was sufficiently rebutted by the evidence presented by the contesting party, highlighting the lack of credible evidence for the actual giving and taking of the child.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The arguments in favor of the adoption were undermined by inconsistencies in the evidence and the lack of credible witness testimony regarding the adoption ceremony.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the adoption was not proved in accordance with the law, and thus, Nalini Kanth could not be considered the adopted son of Venkubayamma.2. Validity of the Will dated 03.05.1982Legal Framework and Precedents: The validity of a Will is governed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, and at least one attesting witness must be called to prove its execution.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that neither of the attesting witnesses to the Will was examined, and no sufficient evidence was provided to prove the signatures of the attesting witnesses or the testator.Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence included affidavits and testimonies of individuals who claimed to have knowledge of the Will's execution. However, the Court found these insufficient to satisfy the legal requirements for proving a Will.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal requirements for proving a Will and found that the evidence presented did not meet these standards, particularly due to the lack of testimony from attesting witnesses and the presence of suspicious circumstances.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The arguments supporting the Will's validity were weakened by the lack of credible evidence and the presence of suspicious circumstances, such as the disinheritance of the grandson without clear justification.Conclusions: The Court held that the Will was not proved in accordance with the law and therefore could not confer any rights to Nalini Kanth.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court's significant holdings included:The adoption of Nalini Kanth by Venkubayamma was not proved, and the registered Adoption Deed did not establish a valid adoption due to the lack of credible evidence and suspicious circumstances.The Will dated 03.05.1982 was not proved in accordance with legal requirements, and thus, it did not confer any rights to Nalini Kanth over Venkubayamma's properties.The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was confirmed, denying Nalini Kanth any claim to Venkubayamma's properties.Core Principles Established: The judgment reaffirmed the principles that the validity of an adoption and a Will must be proved by credible evidence, and that mere registration does not suffice to establish their validity. The presence of suspicious circumstances can undermine the credibility of such documents.