DEBI PRASAD (DEAD) RV L.RS. versus TRIBENI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 18-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A • 
R 
) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DEBI PRASAD (DEAD\ RV L.RS. 
v. 
TRIBENI DEVI AND ORS. 
March 18, 1970 
(J,. C. SHAH AND :K. S. HEGDE, JJ.l 
Hindu Law-Acll1ptiou-Burden pf Proof. 
The appellant file<l a suit in 1946 claiming to be the nearest heir to hfa. 
mntcm.al uncle-0, who died in 1934. 
S--defend~n\ no. l (the prede-
ce8sar bf the respondents) resiStcd the suit on the ground that he .had been 
adopted by G on the very day he was born in 1892. 
Close relations of 
the wife of G 
deposed 
that after the bi·rth 
of S, the wife of G 
took 
him 
to 
her 
paternal 
home 
where 
Paon 
Pheri 
ceremony 
was performed, as was cu~omary in that family. 
The application 
for 
admi,sion to the school recited that S was the son of G, and it \Vas signed 
)y G. 
G deposl'!d before '<Courts that S was his son. 
S filed a nomina· 
tion paper. proposed by G mentioning that his ~father was G. 
In income~ 
tax assessment \vhich proceeded on the basis that G and S 
formed 
a 
H. U.F. of which G \va"Nhe'-karta, the professional income of S \vas added. 
Thtn there were admissions of ...r.he appellant in Courts after the death of, 
G that S \\-·as the proprietor of the firm of G. 
Jn other appliCation for 
transfers, the appellant described S. as son of G. 
But there was a decree 
of a Court in 1901. where S was 
descrlbcd 
as son of hfs natural father.~ 
1'hc trial court decreed the suit, but the I1igh Court reversed· that decree. 
The High Court held on the evidence that S was validly adopted jJy_G, 
though S had not been able to establish the custom pleaded bY~film~ ·nor 
was he able to adduce any satisfactory evidence about the actual adoption 
but he has protfuced considerable documentary evidence to show that G 
~as treating him fqr over a quarter of century as his s6n; then there was 
also .. plenty of reliable evidence to show that! close relations including the 
app~llant lreated S as the son of G both during the li'fe time of G and also 
thereafter till" about the time the suit was instituted. 
' 
HELD : A person who seeks to displace the natural succession to pro-
perty by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon 
him by proof of the facr111n of adoption and its validity. Jn order that 
an adoption may be valid under the Hindu law. ·there must be~ a formal 
ceremony of giving and taking. 
This is true of the regenerate castes as 
well as df the Sudras.. Although no particular form is prescribed for the 
ceremony, the law re~uired that the natural parent should hand over the 
adoptive boy an<l the adoptive parent must receive him, the nature 
of 
the ceremony varying --aCt:"Ording to the circumstances. [105 A-DJ 
Although the person who pleads that he had been adopted is bound to 
ptove his title as adopted son, as a fact yet from the long period during 
which he had been received as an adopted son, every allowance for the 
absence of evidence to prov~ch '"fact was to be favourably entertained. 
The case was analogous to'):I'J"d't in. which the legitimacy of a person in 
possession had been acquiesced jn for a considerable time, 3nd a'fterwards 
impeached by a party, who had a right to question the legitimacy, where 
the defendant, in order to defend his status. is allowed to invoke against 
the claimant every presumption which a·rises from long recognition of his. 
!Of' 
1e2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] l S.C.R. 
.legitimacy by members of his family. In the case of a Hindu long rccogui-
tion as an adopted son, raised even a stronger presumption in favour a·._ 
the validity of his adoption, arising from the possibility of the loss of his 
rights in his own family by being adopted in another family. 
In the 
absence of direct evidence much vatue has to be attached to the fact that 
the alleged adopted son had without controversy succeeded to his adop-
tive 'father's estate and enjoyed till his death and that documents during 
his life and after his death were framed upon the basis of the adoption. 
[106 B-Fl 
On the evidence, S was the adopted son of G and there was nothing 
to show that the said adoption was invalid for any reason. 
While con-
·sidering the question of the proof of adoption pleaded. the 'fact that the 
suit was filed nearly 54 years after the alleged adoption had taken place 
must be borne in mind. 
Therefore, naturally it was extremely difficult 
for the adopted son to adduce any .oral evidence in proof of that adoption. 
Addagada Raghavamma and anr. v. Addagada Chenchc11nma and en~. 
:[1964] 2 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.