LexATLURI BRAHMANANDAM (D) THROUGH LRS. versus ANNE SAI BAPUJI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 339 ATLURI BRAHMANANDAM (0) THROUGH LRS. v. ANNE SAi BAPUJI (Civil Appeal No. 9714 of 2010) NOVEMBER 18, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] A B Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - ss. 1 O(iv) and 16 - Adoption - Adopted child more than 15 years of age C on the date of adoption - Validity of- held: Exception to s. 1 O(iv) provides that if custom or usage permits the adoption beyond the age of 15 years, such adoption is valid - On facts, customs in 'Kamma' Community of Andhra Pradesh permits adoption beyond 15 years of age- Such custom having been o repeatedly recognized by courts, it has blended into Jaw of the land and proof thereof not necessary u/s. 57 of Evidence Act - In view of s. 16 also, the deed of adoption being a registered · deed, court has to presume that the adoption was in compliance with the provisions of the Act as the deed has not E been disproved- Evidence Act, 1872- s. 57 - Judicial notice. In a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant, it was stated by the plaintiff that he was the adopted son of the auction purchaser and, thus, was entitled to claim for recovery of possession of the F suit property. The appellant-defendant denied that the plaintiff was the adopted son. Courts below had decreed the suit. In an appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue for G consideration was whether the plaintiff was the adopted son of the auction-purchaser, as he was adopted when he was more than 15 years of age and whether the adoption was barred by s. 1 O(iv) of Hindu Adoption and 339 H 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Maintenance Act, 1956. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The adoption of the respondent by his adoptive father is legal and valid. Clause (iv) of Section B 10 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that a person to be adopted should not have completed the age of 15 years. But there is also an exception that if there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties permitting persons who have completed C the age of 15 years being taken in adoption, such a person could also be validly adopted. On the other hand, the effect and the implication of Section 16 of the Act is that if there is any document purporting to record an adoption .made and is signed by the person giving as well D the person taking the child in adoption is registered under any law for the time being in force and if it is produced in any court, the court would presume that the adoption has been made in compliance of the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved. [Paras 12] [345- E H; 346-A-C] 1.2. In the instant case the respondent was more than 15 years of age at the time of his adoption. But the respondent has proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence like Ext. A-8 (the deed of adoption) that there is F a custom in the "Kamma" community of Andhra Pradesh for adoption of a boy even above the age of 15 years. Therefore, the exception to s. 10(iv) of the Act which is en grafted in the same part of the pr'Jvision of Section 10 of the Act was satisfied. Since the aforesaid custom and G aforesaid adoption was also recorded in a registered deed of adoption, the court has to presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act, since the respondent has utterly failed to challenge the said evidence and also to disprove H the aforesaid adoption. [Para 13] [346-D-F] ATLURI BRAHMANANDAM (D) THROUGH LRS. v. 341 ANNE SAi BAPUJI 2. The ordinary rule is that all customs general or A otherwise have to be proved, but u/s. 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872 nothing need to be proved of which the court can take judicial notice. When a custom has been repeatedly recognized by courts, it is blended into the law of land and proof of the same would become B unnecessary under Section 57 of Evidence Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recognized such a custom among the "Kamma" community of Andhra Pradesh of taking in adoption of a person even above the age of 15 years of age and has held the same to be c legal and valid.[Paras 15 and 16) [347-A-C] Ujagar Singh vs. Mst. Jeo AIR 1959 SC 1041 - relied on. Nara Hanumantha Rao vs. Nara Hanumayya and Anr. D 1964 AndhraWeekly Reporter 156 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1964 Andhra Weekly Referred to. Reporter 156 AIR 1959 SC 1041 Referred to. Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.