MADAN LAL versus MST. GOPI & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 29-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
594 
MADAN LAL 
v. 
MST. GOP! & ANR. 
August 29, 1980. 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au 
AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.) 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sec. 100-Findings of fact recorded by the final 
Court of facts-Competency of the High Court to· interfere with findings-when 
arises. 
A deed of adoption was executed by one M on August 10, 1944 stating that 
he had adopted the appellant. 
A suit to challenge this deed was filed contend· 
ing that M was not in a fit state of mind when he executed the deed. 
The 
suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and this order was confirmed by the 
District Court. 
In second appeal the High Court set ?.side the judgments of 
the Courts below and decreed the suit. 
Earlier M had executed another deed of adoption in favour of the appellant, 
but the Registrar refused to register that deed on the ground that the executant 
appeared to him to be a lunatic. 
The matter was remanded by the Mahakma 
Kbas to the Registrar with a direction that the executant be recalled and the 
question decided afresh. The Registrar thereupon examined the executant and 
finding him unable to understand the simplest questions put to him, and giving 
wholly incorrect answers to elementary questions like whom he had adopted, 
reaffirmed his pre-remand view and, refused to register the deed. 
A Suit was then brought by the appellant on September 11, 1940 for the 
compulsory registration of the aforesaid deed of aqoption. 
A written state· 
ment was filed on behalf of M admitting the appellant's claim that he was 
validly' adopted. 
The authority of that admission having been challenged, the 
High Court, in revision, ,examined the matter further and directed that an appro· 
priate issue has been framed on the question. 
After the remand, the Joint 
Kotwal passed an order on January 4, 1944 holding M was not of sound mind , 
and was incapable of protecting his interest in the suit. The High Court agreed 
with the findings of the Joint Kotwal. 
On appeal by special leave, and dismissing the appeal, it was, 
HELD : 
(1) Apart from the bald assertion that the appellant was takep 
in 
adoption, the deed doe.s not mention the year, the date or the place of 
adoption. 
It does not either mention the names of persons who were present 
at the time of adoption. 
In fact there is no evidence whatsoever to show when 
and where the adoption took place and even whether the necessary ceremonies 
were performed. [597 C·D] 
(2) The real drift of the plaint is that M was not in a fit state of mind 
at the relevant time, that no adoption could have taken place in fact and that, 
therefore, the deed of adoption cannot confer on the· appellant the rights of 
an adopted son. [597 E] 
a-. 
MADAN LAL v. MST. GOPI (Chandrachud, C.J.) 
595 
(3). The arg~ment that M was in a fit state of mind when he executed the 
deed c~nnot be accepted. Indeed the halting evidence of the doctor .. one of 
the witnesses, throw a cloud on the mental capacity of M and renders it im-
probable that he could perform or authorise the performanc~ 'of the act ,,f 
adoption or that he could have executed it with an understanding mind. 
His 
.mental faculties were evidently too enfeebled to enable him to enter into a 
transaction which in law has a religious-cum-spiritual significance and which, in 
a wordly way, affects valuable rights to property. [597 F-H] 
(4) The trial court and the District Court wholly ignored the weight ot 
prepondering circumstances on the record and allowed their judgments to be 
influenced by inconsequential matters. 
The High Court was, therefore, justified 
in re-appreciating the evidence and coming to its own independent conclusion 
on the basis of that evidence. [HJ 
(5) The situation here was of an exceptional character, where evidence 
which was incapable of supporting more than one conclusion was considered 
as justifying a conclusion which no reasonable Tribunal could rationally reach. 
This judgment will not be a charter for interferenee by the High Courts witb 
findings of facts recorded by the Final Court of facts.. [598 B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1970. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the J!udgment and Decree dated 
30-4-1969 of the Rajasthan High Cou11t in S. B. Civil Regular Second 
Appeal No. 569/65. 
S. M. Jain, S. K. Jain and Indira Makwana for the Appellant. 
R. K. Garg, V. J. Francis and Sushi[ K. Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delive

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