<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (11) TMI 1868 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285006</link>
    <description>Under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, adoption of a married person is impermissible unless a valid custom or usage applicable to the parties permits it, and that custom must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by the party relying on it. A judicial reference to similar customs does not relieve that burden, and the alleged custom here was not established. Adoption, which alters succession rights, must also be proved by cogent, consistent and credible evidence; the appellant&#039;s evidence contained material contradictions, lacked satisfactory documentary support, and did not dispel suspicious circumstances. The appellant therefore failed to prove both the custom and the adoption, and the finding that he was not the adopted son remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:14:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1868 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285006</link>
      <description>Under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, adoption of a married person is impermissible unless a valid custom or usage applicable to the parties permits it, and that custom must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by the party relying on it. A judicial reference to similar customs does not relieve that burden, and the alleged custom here was not established. Adoption, which alters succession rights, must also be proved by cogent, consistent and credible evidence; the appellant&#039;s evidence contained material contradictions, lacked satisfactory documentary support, and did not dispel suspicious circumstances. The appellant therefore failed to prove both the custom and the adoption, and the finding that he was not the adopted son remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>