Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Md. Aftabuddin Khan And Ors. vs Smt. Chandan Bilasini And Anr. on 11 October, 1976

Bholooram (Bhola) And Ors. vs Ramlal And Ors. on 1 February, 1989

See Md. Aftabuddin Khan v. Smt. Chandan Bilasini, AIR 1977 Orissa 69. The lower appeal Court found that plaintiff's natural father Kalayan, the giver had not signed the document. However since Kalayan entered in the witness-box as P.W. 9 and stated that he had given the plaintiff in adoption to Ganpat, despite the absence of his signature in Ex.P. 18 it must be held that adoption was in accordance with the requirements" of the Adoption Act and the burden shifted on the defendant to prove that the adoption was contrary to law. Inference against the , defendants was also drawn for non-production of Jatibai as their witness. This approach of the Court below was patently erroneous. The presumption from a registered document of adoption is a rebuttable presumption and both the factum and the validity can be disproved, but the presumption is not to be made unless the essential conditions laid down Under Section 16 are satisfied. It was held in Naresh v. chrajbai, 1979 MPLJ 591, that for raising a presumption of valid adoption from a registered document produced in the Court, it must be proved that it was signed by the persons giving and taking the child in adoption. Therefore, it must be held that no presumption as to the factum of adoption and its validity could be drawn from adoption deed Ex.P. 18 merely because it is a registered instrument.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1