Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pathivada Ramaswami And Another vs Korda Surya Prakasa Rao And Another on 10 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR1993AP336, 1993(2)ALT503, I(1993)DMC535, AIR 1993 ANDHRA PRADESH 336, (1993) 1 LS 245, (1993) 2 MAD LJ 222, (1993) 1 APLJ 311, (1993) 1 DMC 535, (1993) 2 HINDULR 219, (1994) MARRILJ 101, (1993) 2 ANDH LT 503, (1993) 2 CIVLJ 625
ORDER
1. Mr. M. S. Ramachandra Rao relies upon a decision reported in G. Rama Rao alias V. D. Rama Rao v. V. Atchut-amma, (1971) II An WR 60 interpreting the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and contends that where the natural father of the adopted child did not speak about the giving and taking, merely relying upon registered document arid adoption is not proved as a valid adoption. On this ground he prays that the C.R.P. should be admitted as the Court committed a mistake. A perusal of the decision reported in G. Rama Rao alias Vadaga Rama Rao v. Vadaga Atchutamma (supra) contains the following passage :
"Even under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the legal requirement for the validity of an adoption is the ceremony of adoption at which there is a giving and taking of the boy as adoption does not by itself confer the status of an adopted son on the boy. It is therefore, incumbent upon the defendant to prove that there was a giving and taking as required by the Hindu Law."
With utmost respect to the learned Judge I have to point out that the above quoted passage overlooks the statutory provision of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. S. 16 of the Act contemplates a statutory presumption. The working of S. 16 is very significant. Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any Court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.
2. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the" petitioner, his Lordship did not give significance to the words in the statute that "whenever a registered document of adoption is produced the Court/shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act. I am of the humble opinion that the law laid down in that decision is not a correct interpretation of S. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. It is contrary to the provisions of the statute. In this view of the matter, the present C.R.P. is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
3. Revision dismissed.