Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (4.23 seconds)

Madhusudan Das vs Smt. Narayani Bai And Others on 25 November, 1982

In the case of Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 114, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity. They further held that the proof shall be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. The fact of adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact. Here, in the case on hand, as said earlier, the factum of adoption, other conditions, ceremonies, performance etc., were spoken to by P. Ws.1 to 3 and in addition to the same, Ex.A-2-adoption deed has been duly registered. In such a circumstance, we are satisfied that requisite conditions were fulfilled in adopting first plaintiff as adopted son of Arumugha Mudaliar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 186 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Govinda vs Chimabai And Ors. on 20 December, 1967

20. The statement of law made by the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in Govinda v. Chimabai, reported in AIR 1968 Mysore 309 relating to proof of adoption is relevant: (paa 18) "18. The law relating to the proof of adoption is that the person claiming to be an adopted son must prove the factum of his adoption by cogent and reliable evidence, and where the adopter denies the adoption, the onus is still heavier on the plaintiff to establish his adoption and its validity.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next