KARTAR SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH GUARDIAN BACHAN SINGH versus SURJAN SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 16-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

742 
KARTAR SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH 
GUARDIAN BACHAN SINGH 
1'. 
SURJAN SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS. 
' 
August 16. 1974 
A 
[P. JAGANMOf!AN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
ll 
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 s. 1 l(vi)-Scope of-"With intent to 
transfer the ·child Jrotn the fan1i!y of its birth to the family of its adoption"-Meaning. 
The first respondent's suit questioning the adoption of the appellant was dismis-
sed by the trial court. The first appellate court held that the ceremony of giving a:nd 
taking had not taken place and allowed the appeal. The single judge of the High 
Court held that the giving and taking had taken place and that there was intention 
to transfer the appellant fro1n the family of his birth to that of the adoptive family 
C 
within the meaning of s. 1 l(vi) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
However, in Letters Patent Appeal the Division BeQch held that there was no in-
tention to transfer the appellant from his natural family to the family of adoptive 
father. 
Allo\ving the appeal, 
HELD : The single Judge was right in his conclusion that there was evidence 
of intention to transfer the appellant from his natural family to that of the adoptive 
father and that the fact that the adoptive father was at one time governed by custo-
mary law or that the adoption was stated to have been validly made in accordance 
with custom would not go to show that the intention at the time of the adoption 
\Vas not to transplant the appellant fro1n his natural family to that of the adoptive 
family, 
because customary law also recognises formal adoption resulting in change 
of family. The Division Bench failed to take into consideration the fact that the 
very ceremony of giving and taking is in itself symbolic of transplanting the adopted 
son from the family of his birth to the adoptive family. 
[743 F-744A,H] 
(2) The adoption deed refers to the adoptive father taking the appellant into 
his Jap from his parents and adopting him as his son. The adoptive father referred 
to the appellant as adopted son and specificaily ca.lled the document "adoption 
deed". The adoption deed is to be read as a whole and so read there could be no 
doubt that what the adoptive father intended was to make an adoption acc_ording 
to law and not merely appoint an heir according to custon1. After the abolition 
of the customary Jaw of adoption, whether of the formal or informal kind, there is 
no room for any argument about the validity of the adoption provided the forma-
lities prescribed by Jaw were complied with. 
The words ins. ll{vi) of the Act" 
with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth to the family of its adop-
tion" are merely indicative of the result of actual giving and taking by the parents 
or guardians concerned referred to in the earlier part of the clause. 
Where an adop-
tion ceremony was gone through and the giving and taking took place there cannot 
be any other intention. 
[745D-F, H-746A] 
ln the instant case there was a clear finding that the intention was to transfer the 
adopted son to the adoptive family. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal N.). 1888 of 1967. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & D<ciCc dated tlcc 
12th April, 1967 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 
6 of 1963. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Bishan Narain, S. K. Mehta mu/ K. R. Nagara;a, for the Appellant. 
H 
Hardayal Hardr, 
Harhans Singh and Gautam Goswami for 
Respondents Nos. 1 (i) to 1 (vi). 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KARTAR SINGH v. SURJAN SINGH (Dead) lAlagiriswami, J.) 743 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. ALAGIRISWAM,I, J. The appellant :vas adopted by Maghi Singh, 
htS grand-fathers brother. Magh1 Smgh also executed a deed of 
adoption. After his death another brother of Maghi Singh, the )st 
respondent, filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, questioning 
the adoption and claiming a half .share in Maghi Singh's property. 
The smt was d1snussed by the Tna.l .court but the First Appellate 
Court held that the ceremony of g1vmg and taking had not taken 
plaee and allowed the appeal. In Second Appeal Justice Khanna 
oft.he Punjab High Court, as the then was, held that the giving and 
takmg had taken pface and rejected an argument that e\en if there was 
the act of giving and taking, it was not with the intent to transfer the 
appellant from the family of his birth to that of Maghi Singh beeause 
Maghi Singh was governed by customary law. A Divisio

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