Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs, C. Subramanian and S. Meenachi, who are the natural parents of a child named Rajasekar. They challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court which dismissed their suit seeking to declare an adoption deed dated 20.04.2005 as null and void and for custody of the child. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, V. Shanmugam and Kanimozhi, obtained the adoption deed by fraud and misrepresentation, and that no adoption ceremonies were performed. The defendants contended that the adoption was valid and that the plaintiffs voluntarily executed the deed. The trial court, after considering evidence, held that the adoption deed was valid and that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the plaintiffs had admitted their signatures on the adoption deed and that the deed was registered. The court applied the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which raises a presumption of valid adoption when a registered deed exists. The plaintiffs did not rebut this presumption. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claim of fraud was not supported by evidence. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Adoption - Validity of Adoption Deed - Sections 6, 7, 8, 11, 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - The plaintiffs, natural parents, sought to declare an adoption deed as null and void alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the adoption deed was validly executed voluntarily by the plaintiffs and that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act applied. The High Court, in second appeal, found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings. (Paras 1-16)
B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court held that in a second appeal, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiffs failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation, and the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Adoption Deed dated 20.04.2005 is null and void on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to custody of the child.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 08.12.2017 in A.S.No.42 of 2016 confirming the trial court's decree dated 03.02.2016 in O.S.No.152 of 2013 are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Adoption
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
- 1956
- Section 16 presumption
- burden of proof
- fraud
- misrepresentation
- concurrent findings
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 478
S.A.No.563 of 2018 and CMP No.16900 of 2018
Mr. S. Mukunth (Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Sathish Kumar) for Appellants, Mr. E. K. Kumaresan for Respondents
C. Subramanian and S. Meenachi
V. Shanmugam and Kanimozhi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration that adoption deed is null and void and for mandatory injunction for custody of child.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought declaration that adoption deed dated 20.04.2005 is null and void and mandatory injunction directing defendants to hand over custody of child Rajasekar.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants obtained adoption deed by fraud and misrepresentation, and that no adoption ceremonies were performed.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit on 03.02.2016; first appellate court confirmed on 08.12.2017.
Issues
Whether the adoption deed dated 20.04.2005 is null and void on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to custody of the child?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs argued that they never consented to adoption and that the deed was obtained by false representation.
Defendants contended that adoption was valid and plaintiffs voluntarily executed the deed.
Ratio Decidendi
The presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 applies to a registered adoption deed, and the burden is on the person challenging the adoption to prove fraud or misrepresentation. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
This Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the Original Suit...
The plaintiffs are a married couple with three children, the youngest of whom is Rajasekar.
The plaintiffs never gave him in adoption to the defendants.
The defendants took advantage of the custody, and obtained a Deed from the plaintiffs through false representation.
The plaintiffs became aware of this Deed as an Adoption Deed only on June 11, 2012...
Currently, the defendants' marital relationship has deteriorated.
The 1st defendant developed a relationship outside of marriage...
After the birth of this female child, the 1st defendant failed to maintain Rajasekar.
Consequently, the plaintiffs demanded return of his custody.
In response, the 1st defendant claimed that the child was adopted by him through an Adoption Deed dated April 20, 2005...
Further, the 1st defendant deserted his wife / 2nd defendant.
Currently, child - Rajasekar is in the custody of the 2nd defendant...
Despite this, the 2nd defendant refused to return the child to the plaintiffs.
Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the Suit praying to declare the Adoption Deed as null and void...
For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.152 of 2013 before Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur, which was dismissed on 03.02.2016. Appeal A.S.No.42 of 2016 before II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram was dismissed on 08.12.2017. Second Appeal S.A.No.563 of 2018 was filed before Madras High Court and dismissed on 22.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Sections 6, 7, 8, 11, 16
