MOTURU NALINI KANTH versus GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.)

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 20-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 644 : 2023 INSC 1004
644
CASE DETAILS
MOTURU NALINI KANTH
v.
GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.)
(Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 20, 2023
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Suit fi led by the appellant (then a minor) 
through his guardian claiming right and title over the properties of late 
‘V’, who as per his claim had adopted him, under a registered Will. 
Trial Court decreed the suit. High Court whether justifi ed in allowing 
the appeal fi led by V’s grandson, ‘GK’.
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.68, 69 – Legal requirements to prove 
a Will – Suit was fi led by the appellant, through his guardian, for 
declaration of his title to the suit properties belonging to late ‘V’ and 
for recovery of their possession from V’s grandson-‘GK’ (who was 
her grandson through her deceased daughter) – It was his case that 
he was adopted by ‘V’ by a registered Adoption Deed – Appellant was 
the son of V’s brother’s son – As per him ‘V’ had executed registered 
Will bequeathing all her properties to him and canceled her earlier 
Will, executed in favour of ‘GK’ – Trial Court held in favour of the 
appellant – Decision reversed by High Court:
Held: For the purposes of s.69, it is not enough to merely examine 
a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix 
his signature in the Will – The very purpose and objective of insisting 
upon examination of at least one attesting witness to the Will would 
be entirely lost if such requirement is whittled down to just having a 
stray witness depose that he saw the attesting witness sign the Will – 
Neither of the attesting witnesses to the Will were examined before 
the Trial Court, in compliance with s.68 – Therefore, s.69 could have 
been made use of to prove the Will but no witness was examined who 
645
was familiar with the signature of either of the attesting witnesses 
and who could vouch for the same or produce an admitted signature 
before the Trial Court – Will not proved in accordance with law and 
has no legal consequence – Disowning of her own grandson by ‘V’ 
under Will is a suspicious circumstance that remained unexplained 
– Too many suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will make it 
very difficult to accept and act upon the same, even if it had been 
proved as per law – Further, adoption of the appellant is not proved 
in accordance with law despite the registration of Adoption Deed 
– On facts, the very adoption, itself, is not believable, given the 
multitude of suspicious circumstances surrounding it – Therefore, 
appellant cannot be treated as V’s heir by adoption thus, not entitled 
to claim any right or share in her properties – Findings of the High 
Court to that effect, albeit for reasons altogether different, do not 
warrant interference – Judgment of the High Court confirmed – Indian 
Succession Act, 1925 – s.63 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 
1956 – s.16. [Paras 30, 32, 55]
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – ss.16, 11 – 
Presumption u/s.16 in favour of a registered document relating 
to adoption, rebuttable – Appellant claimed a half-share in V’s 
properties relying on the adoption ceremony and the registered 
Adoption Deed:
Held: The presumption is rebuttable – On facts, the adoption 
ceremony and the Adoption Deed are shrouded with equally suspicious 
circumstances – As the Adoption Deed was registered, the presumption 
u/s.16 attached to it and it was for ‘GK’ (V’s grandson) to rebut that 
presumption, who did so more than suffi  ciently – Mere registration of 
the Adoption Deed did not absolve the person asserting such adoption 
from proving that fact by cogent evidence and the person contesting it 
from adducing evidence to the contrary – It is in this respect that various 
suspicious circumstances attached to the adoption ceremony of assume 
signifi cance – The actual ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption, is 
an essential requisite u/s.11(vi) however, there is no convincing evidence 
of that ‘act’ also in the case on hand – There are no pictures of the actual 
‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption. [Paras 35, 46 and 50]
MOTURU NALINI KANTH v. GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, 
THROUGH LRS.)
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ashutosh Samanta (Dead) by LRs. And others vs. SM. Ranjan 
Bala Dasi and others (2023) SCC OnLine SC 255; Ved Mitra Verma vs. 
Dharam Deo Verma (2014) 15 SCC 578 – distinguished.
Janki 

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