KASHI NATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus JAGANATH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 05-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KASHr NA TH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
JAGANATH 
NOVEMBER 5, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
C 
Adoption of male child-Validity of-On/acts, appellant claiming to be 
an adopted son of the pujari of the temple, thus entitled to manage temple, do 
sevapuja, and to get offerings made to the idols and the other party having 
exclusive right over it-Seeking declaration to the effect·-Courts below 
dismissing the suit holding that appellant not an adopted son on basis of the 
evidence-High Court upholding the order-On appeal, held: Evidence and 
D the pleadings are at variance and also directly contradictory and self destructive 
of the claim of adoption-Hence order of High Court justified-Old Hindu 
law, Article 3-Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955. 
The dispute arose with regard to functioning as a pujari in the temple 
in question. The original appellant claimed to be the adopted son of the 
E pujari of the temple. He filed suit for declaration that he is entitled to 
manage the temple, to do sevapuja and to get offerings made to idol; and 
that the respondent-defendants belonging to the other community have 
no excl~sive right. Respondent contended that the appellant was not the 
adopted son. Courts below rejected the appellant's claim and dismissed 
F the suit on the basis of the evidence on record. High Court held that the 
pleadings were at variance with the evidence and rejected the claim. Hence 
the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that the approach of the High Court is 
unsupportable; that several orders and judgments clearly establish that 
G the appellant was the adopted son of the pujari of the temple; that the 
Courts below erred in ignoring those and attaching undue importance to 
minor variations; that when the documentary evidence was sufficient 
merely because the oral evidence was somewhat not in line with the 
pleadings that should not have weighed with the courts below. 
H 
202 
KASH! NATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. JAGANATH 
203 
Respondents contended that several essential ingredients have to be A 
established to come to a conclusion about the valid adoption; that the 
evidence fell sho~ of that legal requirement; that the evidence and the 
pleadings were not only at variance but directly contradictory and self 
destructive of the case on the claim of adoption, therefore, the High Court 
was justified in dismissing the second appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. When the evidence is not in line with the pleadings and 
is at variance with it and in virtual self contradiction, adverse inference 
has to be drawn and the evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon. 
Additionally, the conclusion whether there was adoption is essentially one C 
of fact merely depending upon pure appreciation of evidence on record. 
(209-D-E) 
Siddiqui Mohammad Shah v. Mst. Saran and Ors., AIR (1930) PC 57; 
Mis. Trojan and Co. v. RM N.N. Nagappa Chetiar, AIR (1953) SC 235; D 
1/.ajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (dead) by Lrs .. (2000) 8 SCC 99 and Raushan 
Devi v. Ramji Sah and Ors .. (2002) 10 SCC 205, referred to. 
1.2. From the judgments of the trial Court, First Appellate Court 
and the High Court it is clear that there was no consistency so far as the 
claim regarding the adoption is concerned particularly as to who and at E 
what point of time it was made. The High Court has taken great pains to 
extract the relevant variations to indicate as to how it cut at the very root 
of appellant's claim. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the well-
merited findings concurrently recorded by the courts below with which 
the High Court also rightly declined to interfere on the facts and 
circumstances of this case. (209-C-D; 209-F) 
F 
V.T.S. Chandrashekhara Mudaliar v. Kulandaivelu Muda/iar, AIR 
(1963) SC 185; Hem Singh and Anr. v. Harnam Singh and Anr .. AIR (1954) 
SC 581; Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh. AIR (1933) PC 155 and 
Kishori Lal v. Chaltibai, AIR (1959) SC 504, referred to. 
G 
Hindu Law by S. V. Gupta, Third Edition p.899-900; Manu Chapter IX. 
p.141-142 as translated by Sir W Jones; Mayne 's Hindu Law and Usage 12th 
Edn. P.329, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 1996. H 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.86 of the Rajasthan High 
B 
c 
Court in S.B.C.S. A. No. 94 of 1976. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 8596 of 2003. 
O.P. Sharma and R.C. Gubrele for the Appellants. 
Aru

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