Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(7) Defendant 1, in her written statement, contended that her husband's family was a well-to-do family. She was not only Venkatesh brother's wife but also his niece, and even after the death of her husband Shama Rao, she was staying with Venkatesh and Mathurabai, who being a child-widow was also staying with them.

(8) Venkatesh had almost lost his eye-sight, and he being a Watandar Kulkarni and being a Palidar, was rendering service to the Government through his representative. On account of this infirmity, he remained unmarried. Venkatesh had absolutely no mind to adopt anybody. However, while she was at her parents' house at Dharwar, he was taken away to Dharwar by Narayan (father of the present plaintiff) and Ranga Rao (his grandfather), where Narayan was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, on the pretext that the 'Jawal' or tonsure ceremony of the plaintiff was to be performed. Narayan and his father, taking advantage of his (Venkatesh's) presence there and the loss of his eye-sight, represented to him that the tonsure ceremony of the plaintiff was to take place at Venkatapur, a holy place. He was accordingly taken there and without letting him know the ceremony a ceremony alleged to be ceremony of adoption had been brought about and his signature to the adoption deed was also obtained. Narayan and Ranga Rao managed to get this document registered.

(36) Now, we will proceed to consider whether the alleged adoption is said to have been brought about by practising fraud on Venkatesh. The case of the defendants as to fraud, as set out in the written statement of defendant has already been stated, namely, that under the pretext of performing the tonsure ceremony of the plaintiff, Venkatesh was take to Venkatapur, and under the pretext of performing the tonsure or jawal ceremony, the adoption ceremony is alleged to have been brought about.

(37) In the first place, we have to see whether it is proved that a jawal or tonsure ceremony was performed prior to the alleged adoption, and if it is proved, then to that extent, it might support plaintiff's case, but if it is disproved, then it might strengthen the defendants' case of fraud. Narayan, plaintiff's natural father, in his evidence has stated that plaintiff's jawal ceremony was performed at Dharwar when he was 11 months' old. According tot he religious custom, the jawal ceremony h as to be performed before the boy completes his first year. His family priest Ananthachar Hattiholi attended and it was performed by Krishnachar Hungund residing at Dharwar. he denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that the jawal ceremony of the plaintiff was really performed by him at Venkatapur and that he took Venkatesh to Venkatapur for that purpose only.

(39) Now, what is this jawal or tonsure ceremony? Dr. P. V. Kane in his 'history of Dharmasastra', Vol. II, Part I, at page 261, describes the samskara of cholula i.e. 'jawal' to tonsure ceremony as follows;

"The principal act in this ceremony is the cutting of the hair of the child. The other subsidiary mattes are the performance of homa, feeding brahmanas, receiving of their benedictions and giving of dakshina; the disposal of cut hair in such a way that no one can find them. The ceremony is to be performed on an auspicious day...." There is no evidence on what day the ceremony was performed. The statement of this witness that the jawal ceremony is not performed in temples or theerthas, does not appear to be true and is not supported by any reliable authority. Though it may be performed at the house, it is more frequently performed in temples or religious places. This is all the evidence relating to the performance of the tonsure or jawal ceremony of the plaintiff, Narayan does not say that on the occasion, a homa was performed or Brahmins were fed and the boy received any benediction from them or any dakshina was given to them, as enjoined by Shastras and pointed out by Dr. Kane. In our view, therefore, the evidence relating to jawal ceremony led by the plaintiff is insufficient to hold that the jawal ceremony of the plaintiff was performed as stated by the witnesses prior to the alleged adoption.

(42) The photo produced in the case viz., Ex, 192 shows that homa was performed, and as Dr. Kane points out, the performance of homa is also a subsidiary matter which is performed at the time of the tonsure ceremony. There is also the evidence that a dinner was held and people were fed, after the photo was taken, which is also done on the occasion of the 'jawal' ceremony. Therefore, for what we know, the photograph may as well be the photograph of the jawal ceremony.

(43) It is to be noted that the conduct of the adopted and that of the adoptee is of great relevance in proof of an alleged adoption. If, as stated in the adoption deed, Venkatesh loved the plaintiff and therefore took him in adoption, then it would be relevant to see how the adoptee was treated by the adopter before and since the adoption. We would therefore consider the evidence bearing on the conduct of Venkatesh towards the plaintiff, and the conduct of plaintiff or of Narayan during plaintiff's minority, during the period of 18 years, and see whether plaintiff could be said to have been adopted by Venkatesh.