JAI SINGH versus SHAKUNTALA

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 14-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAi SINGH 
A 
v. 
SHAKUNTALA 
MARCH 14, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956-Section 16-Registered 
document relating to adoption-Statutory presumption that adoption made in 
accordance with law-Whether such,presumption rebuttable-Held, such C 
presumption arising.from adoption deed can be rebutted by evidence available 
on record-On fact, no specific ceremonies of adoption nor any evidence 
tendered pertaining to adoption-Thus presumption is rebuttable. 
Constitution of India-Article I 36-Special leave jurisdiction-
Reappreciation of evidence-Scope of-Held. is permissible in very exceptional D 
cases and on extreme perversity. 
Respondent-natural daughter of deceased filed suit for declaration that 
she was the owner of the property left by her father. She alleged that the 
decree passed in civil suit instituted earlier and registered will alleged to have 
been executed by her father together with the Adoption Deed recording that E 
appellant had been adopted by her father were illegal and thus not binding 
on her. Trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved, appellant filed appeal which 
was dismissed. High Court also dismissed the appeal thus negating the 
adoption. 
Hence the present appeal. 
The question that arose for consideration is whether presumption 
envisaged under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 
in respect of a registered document pertaining to adoption that the adoption 
has been made in accordance with law is irrebuttable. 
" 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
-
HELD: 1.1. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 
F 
G 
1956 envisages a statutory presumption that in the event of there being a 
registered document pertaining to adoption there would be a presumption H 
431 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A that adoption has been made in accordance with law. Mandate of the Statute 
is rather definite since the Legislature has used "shall" instead of any other 
word of lesser significance. Incidentally, however, the in.clusion of the words 
"unless and until it is disproved" appearing at the end of the statutory 
provision has made the situation not that rigid but flexible enough to depend 
B upon the evidence available on record in support of adoption. It is a matter 
of grave significance by reason of the factum of adoption and displacement 
of the person adopted from the natural succession thus onus of proof is rather 
heavy. Statute has allowed some amount of flexibility, lest it turns out to be 
solely dependent on a registered adoption deed. The reason for inclusion of 
the words "unless and until it is disproved" shall have to be ascertained in its 
C proper perspective and as such the presumption cannot but be said to be a 
rebuttable presumption Statutory intent thus stands out to be rather 
expressive depicting therein that the presumption cannot be an irrebuttable 
presumption by reason of the inclusion of the words. [433-G-H; 434-A-C] 
Madan Singh v. Mst. Sham Kaur and Ors., AIR (1973) P & H 122, 
D approved. 
1.2. While scrutiny of evidence does not stand out to be totally prohibited 
in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction in the second appeal and that would 
be too broad a proposition and too rigid an interpretation of law not worthy 
of acceptance but that does not also clothe the superior courts within 
E jurisdiction to intervene and interferes in any and every matter-it is only in 
very exceptional cases and on extreme perversity that the authority to examine 
the same in extenso stands permissible-it is a rarity rather than a regularity 
and thus it can be safely concluded that while there is no prohibition as such, 
but the power to scrutiny can only be had in very exceptional circumstances 
p 
and upon proper circumspection. This is, however, without expression of any 
opinion pertaining to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1435-A-C] 
1.3. Presumption is a rebuttable presumption. While it is true that the 
registered instrument of adoption presumably stands out to be taken to be 
correct but the Court is not precluded from looking into it upon production 
G of some evidence contra the adoption. Evidence, which is made available to 
the Court for rebutting the presumption, can always be looked into and it is 
on production of that evidence that the High Court has recorded a finding_of 
non-availability of the presumption to the Appellant [435-G-H; 436-Al 
.... 
1.4. It is

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