SMT. CHANDAN BILASINI (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. versus AFTABUDDIN KHAN AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 16-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. CHANDAN BILASINI (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. 
v. 
AFfABUDDIN KHAN AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1995 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: 
A 
B 
Ss. 11, 12 & 14-Adoption by widow-Proof of-Ceremony of giving 
and taking peif onned-Adoptive mother executing a deed acknowledging C 
adoption-Witnesses present at adoption ceremony including priest who per-
! onned the ceremony and one attesting witness of adoption deed testifying the 
ceremony of giving and takin~High Co wt drawing adverse inference against 
validity of adoption on the ground that adoptive mother did not examine 
herself-Held, High Court erred in drawing inferenc~Evidence on record D 
establishes factum of adoption. 
In a suit pertaining to certain property dispute the factum of adop-
tion of the respondent (in C.A. No. 2462/77) by the plaintiff-appellant (in 
CA No. 1245/77) was disputed. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that 
her husband died in 1905 leaving behind a will whereunder she was E 
authorised to adopt a son and, in the event of such adopted son's death, 
to adopt a second son. Accordingly, she adopted a son who died unmarried 
in 1965. Thereafter she adopted the respondent on 24.8.1965 i.e. after 
coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. She 
executed a registered deed on 30.9.1965 acknowledging the adoption. The F 
said deed, however, was not counter-signed by the natural parents of the 
adoptive child. Later the natural father also executed a deed on 15.4.1967 
acknowledging the adoption. The first appellate Court, on the basis of the 
oral evidence as well as the two supporting documents, held that there was 
a valid adoption. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, G 
however, held that there was no valid adoption as the adoptive mother, 
who was alive at the time when the evidence was recorded by the trial 
Court, did not examine herself. 
On appeal to this Court, the parties settled their dispute with regard 
to the property. 
H 
361 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeals on the issue of adoption, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. There was a valid adoption of the respondent by the 
plaintiff-appellant. The adoption was made in accordance with the 
provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
B 
1.2. The High Court was not right in drawing an adverse inference 
from the fact that before the Trial Court the adoptive mother did not 
examine herself. Admittedly, at the time of recording of the evidence by the 
Trial Court, she was of 86 years - too old to be produced in Court for giving 
evidence. The High Court failed to take into account the fact that there 
C were other witnesses present at the time of adoption, who were examined. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
PW- 1, the natural father of the adopted son, and PW-2, the priest who 
performed the adoption ceremony, deposed that the adoption took place 
on 24.8.1965 and the ceremony of giving and taking was performed. PW-6 
is the attesting witness to the deed of adoption executed by the adoptive 
mother. The mere fact that some other persons who were present at the 
adoption ceremony were not examined, cannot be considered as making 
the -adoption doubtful. Besides, the registered document regarding the 
adoption which was executed within one month of adoption by the adoptive 
mother should also be given its due weight as evidence of adoption. Thus, 
the evidence of record clear!y establishes that the adoption took place by 
the ceremony of giving and taking. (364-B-F; G] 
2. In view of Ss.12 and 14(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Main-
tenance Act, 1956, on adoption of the respondent by the plaintiff-appellant, 
he would be deemed to be the child of the plaintiff-appellant and her 
deceased husband, for all purposes with effect from the date of the adop-
tion and from that date all ties of the child in the family of his birth would 
be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in 
the adoptive family. The family relationship got crystalized as on the date 
of adoption. (365-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1245 of 
1977 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.1976 of the Orissa High 
Court in A.H.O. No. 37 of 1975. 
H 
Santosh Hedge, Dr. Shankar Gho.;h, Jayant Das, Janaranjan Das 
CHANDAN BILASINI v. AFfABUDDIN KHAN (SUJATA V. MANO HAR, J.] 363 
M.S. Dayan, B. Chandrasekhar, K.N. Tripathi, G.S. Chatterjee and Ms. A 
Aruna 

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