HARNEK SINGH versus PRITAM SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 17-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 184 
HARNEK SINGH 
v. 
PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.3895-3896 of 2013) 
APRIL 17, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Family Law - Custom - Adoption - Validity - Plea of 
plaintiff-appellant that he had been adopted by defendant 
C no. 1 - Parties belonged to the Jat community in District 
Ambala, Haryana - At the time of alleged adoption, plaintiff 
was about 23 years old and a married man having children -
For valid adoption, required condition that the person who may 
be adopted has not completed the age of 15 years unless 
D there is a custom and usage applicable - Concurrent findings 
of both the first appellate court and the High Court that neither 
the custom was proved nor the factum of adoption was 
established by conclusive evidence -
On appeal, held: 
Question with regard to the custom prevalent amongst the Jats 
E to take in adoption a married man having children not 
required to be gone into - Evidence brought on record goes 
against the plaintiff and on that basis it cannot be held that 
there was a valid adoption - Defendant no. 1 filed written 
statement asserting that he never took the plaintif in adoption, 
F and also denied that plaintiff resided with him or helped him 
in cultivating the land - Further during pendency of the case, 
when defendant No. 1 died, the plaintiff did not even perform 
the last ritual and other ceremonies of the deceased -
Normally, concurrent findings recorded by two courts need not 
be interferecf with, unless they appear to be perverse in law -
G On facts, evidence goes against the appellant and, therefore, 
it cannot be held that there was perversity in the judgment 
passed by the two appellate courts - Hindu Adoption and 
Maintenance Act, 1956 - ss. 10 & 11. 
H 
184 
HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 
185 
The plaintiff (appellant) filed a suit for declaration that 
A 
the gift deed alleged to have been executed by defendant 
No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, in respect of 
the suit land was illegal, void, ineffective and liable to be 
set aside. The plaintiff averred that he was the adopted 
son of defendant No.1; that the plaintiff along with 
B 
defendant No.1 constituted a Joint Hindu family and was 
having title in the ancestral property and that defendant 
Nos.2 and 3 got the alleged gift deed executed in their 
favour by giving threat and undue coercion, taking 
advantage of the unsound and mental weakness of c 
defendant no.1. 
The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their joint written 
statement taking preliminary objection that the plaintiff is 
not the adopted son of defendant no.1 as he never 
adopted the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff had no D 
locus standi to file the suit.. The further case of the said 
defendants was that that defendant No.1 was the 
absolute owner of the suit property and was fully 
competent to alienate the same in favour of defendants; 
and that he executed the gift deed in their favour out of 
E 
love and affection. 
The trial court held that the plaintiff was the legally 
adopted son of deceased defendant No.1, however, the 
suit property was not the ancestral property; hence, 
defendant no.1 was entitled to alienate the property. 
Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was 
dismissed. The first appellate court observed that when 
F 
the appellant claimed to have been taken in adoption, he 
was more than fifteen years of age (about 23 years old) 
G 
and a married man having children, and thus it was 
incumbent upon him to at least plead·that his adoption 
was in consonance with the custom prevalent amongst 
his community (Jat community of District Ambala) but he 
did not so plead in the plaint. Further observing that the 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A suit was filed during the life time of defendant no.1, who 
had filed a written statement wherein he denied the very 
factum of adoption; the first appellate Court held that 
once the adoptive father himself alleged that he never 
took the plaintiff-appellant in adoption, the court cannot 
B substitute its own decision that he was taken in adoption 
by defendant no.1. The first appellate court held that 
prima facie the alleged adoption was violative of the 
provision of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and 
Maintenance Act 1956 and accordingly the same cannot 
c be held to be a valid adoption: The High Court affirmed 
the findings recorded by the first appellate court, and 
therefore the instant a

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