LexNILIMA MUKHERJEE versus KANTA BHUSAN GHOSH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NILIMA MUKHERJEE A v. KANTA BHUSAN GHOSH AUGUST 17, 2001 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B Rent Control and Eviction Eviction suit-Death of tenant-Appellants's claim to tenancay-Based on adoption-Adoption not proved-Suit decreed-Held, suit rightly decreed. C Hindu law Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956-Section 11 (Vl)-Death of tenant-Claim to tenancy based on adoption-Witnesses having no personal knowledge of adoption-No documentary evidence except joint bank account D with deceased tenant-Held, adoption not valid in the absence of proof- Hence, claim to tenancy rightly rejected by courts below. The Respondent/plaintiff filed an eviction suit against the appellant on the ground that as 'R' who was inducted as tenant died intestate, the tenancy became extinct and the appellant who was living with him has no right to E continue as a tenant. Plea of the appellant was that she would continue to be tenant as the adopted daughter of 'R'. In order to prove adoption, appellant did not depose in the Court and PWI, her son and PW2, her neighbour did not have personal knowledge of the fact of adoption; no documents except the joint Account in Bank and freedom fighter pension nomination papers of 'R' F showing appellant as his daughter, were produced in the Court. Suit was decreed. First appellate court dismissed the appeal and also noted that there was no seal of the concerned authority on the pension nomination papers. Second appeal before High Court by the appellant was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : Appellant has failed to prove that she was actually given in adoption by her father and taken on adoption by late 'R'. Merely having a joint bank account would not prove adoption in absence of any other cogent 675 G H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. A evidence. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the plea of adoption set up by the appellant, and decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent. [67il-B, q B c D L. Debi Prasad (D) by lrs. v. SflJI. Tribeni Devi and Ors., 1197011 SCC 677, distinguished. lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt. Rup Kanwar, [19621 1 SCR 477, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5383 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.2000 of the Calcutta High Court in S.A.T. No. 2519 of2000. S.B. Sanyal, Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh, Ms. Manita Verma for the Appellant. A.K. Ganguly, S. Sukumaran, Raghu M., Ms. Divya Nair and V.K. Sidharthan for the Respondent. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E PHUKAN, J. Leave is granted. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by the Calcutta High Court in SAT No. 2519/2000. The High Court has dismissed the second appeal in limine. F The respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from ground floor of the house situated at 9/3, Prince Anwar Shah Lane, Calcutta. One Ramesh Chand Ganguly was inducted as a tenant by the respondent in respect of the said ground floor. Late Ramesh Chand Ganguly died intestate on 15.11.87 leaving no heir or heirs. According to the respondent, on the G death of late Ramesh Chand Ganguly the tenancy became extinct. The appellant, the daughter of one Pramatha Nath Banerjee, brother-in-law of Ramesh Chand Ganguly used to reside in the suit premises. The respondent asked the appellant to vacate the suit premises alleging that she was a trespasser. The appellant took the plea that she was the adopted daughter of late Ramesh Chand Ganguly. On these facts, the suit for eviction was filed which was H decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. As stated NILIMA MUKHERJEE v. K.B. GHOSH [PHUKAN, J.] 677 above, the second appeal was also dismissed. The only point for determination A is whether the appellant was the adopted daughter of late Ramesh Chand Ganguly. Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 lays down the conditions for a valid adoption and for the present purpose Clause VI is relevant, which is extracted below: B "11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.-in every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with:- (i)-(v) .............. . (vi) the child to be adopted must actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth or in the case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.