Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.68, 69 – Legal requirements to prove a Will – Suit was filed 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 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 sufficiently – 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 significance – 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] 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 Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (2003) 2 SCC 91: [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 175; Ramesh Verma (Dead) through LRs . vs. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by LRs . and another (2017) 1 SCC 257; H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others AIR 1959 SC 443: [1959] Suppl. SCR 426; Jagdish Chand Sharma vs. Narain Singh Saini through LRs. and others (2015) 8 SCC 615: [2015] 6 SCR 397; Bhagat Ram and another vs. Suresh and others (2003) 12 SCC 35: [2003]
6 Suppl. SCR 216; Benga Behera and another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others (2007) 9 SCC 728: [2007] 6 SCR 853 – relied on. Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others (2008) 15 SCC 365: [2008] 17 SCR 1500; Apoline D’ Souza vs. John D’ Souza (2007) 7 SCC 225: [2007] 6 SCR 1103; Naresh Charan Das Gupta vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta AIR 1955 SC 363: [1955] SCR 1035; Bhagavathiammal vs. Marimuthu Ammal and others 2010 (2) Madras Weekly Notes (Civil) 704; G. Vasu vs. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri AIR 1987 Andhra Pradesh 139; Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Payrelal (1999) 3 SCC 35: [1999] 1 SCR 704; Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. and another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs . And others (2013) 4 SCC 97: [2013]
1 SCR 632; Kishori Lal vs. Mst. Chaltibai AIR 1959 SC 504: [1959] Suppl. SCR 698; Jai Singh vs. Shakuntala (2002) 3 SCC 634; Mst. Deu and others vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (1998) 8 SCC 701; Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Rup Kanwar (Smt) alias Rup Kanwar Bai AIR 1961 SC 1378: [1962] SCR 477; M. Vanaja vs. M. Sarla Devi (Dead) (2020)
5 SCC 307 – referred to.
Govinda vs. Chimabai and others AIR 1968 Mysore 309; Padmalav Achariya and another vs. Srimatyia Fakira Debya and others AIR 1931 Privy Council 81; Dhanno wd/o Balbir Singh vs. Tuhi Ram (Died) represented by his LRs.AIR 1996 P & H – referred to.. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.