Case Note & Summary
The present regular second appeal was filed by the legal representatives of the defendant, assailing the judgment and decree of the appellate court which reversed the trial court's judgment and held that the plaintiff is the adopted son of deceased Neelamma. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he is the adopted son of Neelamma and for consequential reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking, which is mandatory under Section 6 of the Act. The Court noted that the adoption deed was not registered and the witnesses did not support the plaintiff's case. The presumption under Section 16 of the Act does not arise in the absence of a registered adoption deed. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Adoption - Validity of Adoption - Ceremony of Giving and Taking - Sections 6, 11, 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of deceased Neelamma. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking, which is mandatory under Section 6. The presumption under Section 16 does not arise unless the adoption deed is registered and the ceremony is proved. The appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored. (Paras 1-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved his adoption by deceased Neelamma in accordance with Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's judgment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit.
Law Points
- Adoption
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Section 11
- Section 16
- Burden of proof
- Ceremony of giving and taking
- Regular second appeal
- Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (10) 45
Regular Second Appeal No. 200036 of 2014 (DEC)
Sri Vinayak Apte (for appellants), Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Senior Counsel for Sri A.P. Jahagirdar and Sri Ananth S. Jahagirdar (for respondent)
Smt. Chandamma W/o. Shankrappa Chalgeri (since deceased by LRs) and others
Channaveer S/o. Anandraya Hadagil @ Narayanpur (minor represented by Suresh)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the appellate court in a suit for declaration of adoption.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (legal representatives of the defendant) sought to set aside the appellate court's judgment and restore the trial court's decree dismissing the suit.
Filing Reason
The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and held that the plaintiff is the adopted son of deceased Neelamma.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Aland) dismissed the suit on 11.08.2010. The first appellate court (IV Addl. District Judge, Gulbarga) allowed the appeal on 30.11.2013, decreeing the suit.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved his adoption by deceased Neelamma in accordance with Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956?
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's judgment?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking, and the adoption deed was not registered.
Respondent argued that the adoption was valid and the appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
For a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the ceremony of giving and taking is mandatory. The presumption under Section 16 of the Act does not arise unless the adoption deed is registered. The plaintiff failed to prove the essential ceremony, and thus the adoption was not valid.
Judgment Excerpts
The present regular second appeal by the legal representatives of the defendant assailing the judgment and decree of the appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, holding that the plaintiff, is the adopted son of deceased Neelamma w/o Anandraya Hadagil.
The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking, which is mandatory under Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 23/2008 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Aland seeking declaration of adoption. The trial court dismissed the suit on 11.08.2010. The plaintiff appealed in R.A. No. 194/2010 before the IV Addl. District Judge, Gulbarga, who allowed the appeal on 30.11.2013. The defendant's legal representatives filed the present regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was allowed on 10.10.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 100
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Section 6, Section 11, Section 16
