Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mrs. Kamla Rani vs Ram Lalit Rai @ Lalak Rai (D) Thr. Lrs. on 17 July, 2017
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9153 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.29379 of 2014)
MRS. KAMLA RANI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAM LALIT RAI @ LALAK RAI (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of order dated 11 th August, 2014 of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.173 of 2005. The High Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant for declaration to the effect that the appellant was the adopted daughter of late Sadhu Ram and was thus, entitled to her share in the suit property.
The trial Court relied upon evidence of the appellant including her own testimony as PW1 and other oral and documentary evidence showing that she was duly adopted by late Sadhu Ram. The High Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court relying upon Section 11 (vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to the effect that evidence of actual giving and taking in adoption was a mandatory requirement which was not proved in the present Signature Not Verified case which was not proved in the present case. Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2017.07.19 18:25:46 IST Reason:
We find that PW 3 Harbans Lal, uncle of the appellant categorically deposed about the adoption ceremony though he was not 2 present in the said ceremony. Even if the said evidence is ignored, there is undisputed material to show that the appellant was treated as adopted daughter by late Sadhu Ram for a long time. The trial court summed up the issue as follows:
“….I am unable to appreciate the evidence of the defendant no.1 in the light of the documentary evidence, being the school record and various other documents which duly reflect her father’s name as Sh. Sadhu Ram, having been recorded at the instance of Sadhu Ram himself. Under such circumstances, I find that defendant’s evidence just a bald repudiation that the plaintiff was not the adopted daughter and was merely residing with her uncle PW3 who was at one time a tenant in the suit property. This fact is also belied by the fact that initially when the plaintiff was brought to Delhi, the suit property consisted of only one room. Her uncle was induced as a tenant later on upon further construction of the building. Even after he left in 1969, she continued to reside in the same premises with her mother Smt. Shankari Devi. In fact she passed out from her school in 1976 and reliance has been made on records subsequent to 1969 evidencing her continuance of stay in the suit property. All these factors prove that plaintiff had been taken in adoption by Sadhu Ram and Shankari Devi.” We find that the approach adopted by the High Court is unsustainable. The evidence of appellant-plaintiff itself is categorical that she was treated as the adopted child of late Sadhu Ram which is also corroborated by her school record and her marriage having been settled by late Sadhu Ram as his own daughter as per evidence of PW 2 Vijay Kapoor.
We cannot lose sight of the principle that though the factum of adoption and its validity has to be duly proved and formal ceremony of giving and taking is an essential ingredient for a valid adopted, long duration of time during which a person is treated as adopted cannot be ignored and by itself may in the 3 circumstances carry a presumption in favour adoption. In this regard, we may refer to the observations of this Court in L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. versus Smt. Tribeni Devi and Ors1 :
“9. There is no doubt that the burden of proving satisfactorily that he was given by his natural father and received by Gopal Das as his adoptive son is on Shyam Behari Lal. But as observed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Rajendrao Nath Holdar v. Jogendro Nath Banerjee[14 Moor’s Indian Appeals p.67]; that although the person who pleads that he had been adopted is bound to prove his title as adopted son, as a fact yet from the long period during which he had been received as an adopted son, every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove such fact was to be favourably entertained, and that the case was analogous to that in which the legitimacy of a person in possession had been acquiesced in for a considerable time, and afterwards impeached by a party, who had a right to question the legitimacy, where the defendant, in order to defend his status, is allowed to invoke against the claimant every presumption which arises from long recognition of his legitimacy by members of his family; that in the case of a Hindu, long recognition as an adopted son, raised even a stronger presumption in favour of the validity of his adoption, arising from the possibility of the loss of his rights in his own family by being adopted in another family. In Rup Narain v. Gopal Devi [36 IA 103] the Judicial Committee observed that in the absence of direct evidence much value has to be attached to the fact that the alleged adopted son had without controversy succeeded to his adoptive father’s estate and enjoyed till his death and that documents during his life and after his death were framed upon the basis of the adoption. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Balinki Padhano v. Gopalkrishna Padhano [AIR 1964 Ori 117]; held that in the case of an ancient adoption evidence showing that the boy was treated for a long time as the adopted son at a time when there was no controversy is sufficient to prove the adoption although evidence of actual giving and taking is not forthcoming. We are in agreement with the views expressed in the decisions referred to above.” We are satisfied that the reversal of the decree of the trial court by the High Court was not called for.
1 1970 (1) SCC 677 4 Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the order passed by the trial court.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
..........................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ..........................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) New Delhi, July 17, 2017.
5
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29379/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2014 in RFA No. 173/2005 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) MRS. KAMLA RANI Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM LALIT RAI @ LALAK RAI (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 17-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Dr. Pooja Jha,Adv.
Ms. Mandila Jha,Adv.
Mr. Prakash,Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, the appeal is allowed.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)