Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)Section 10 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
The Registration Act, 1908
Adoption Regulations, 2017
Debi Prasad (Dead) By L.Rs vs Tribeni Devi And Ors on 18 March, 1970
In this regard, we may refer to the
observations of this Court in L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni
Devi [L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi, (1970) 1 SCC
677] : (SCC pp. 681-82, para 9)
"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.
Laxmibai (Dead) Thru Lr'S. & Anr vs Bhagwanthbuva (Dead) Thru Lr'S. & Ors on 29 January, 2013
2025:JHHC:20125-DB
defendant in adoption to Nanuwa had not signed the adoption
deed as executants thereof and had appended their signatures
thereto as attesting witnesses. The said finding of fact does not
appear to be correct on a perusal of the copy of the adoption
deed which is on record. We have noticed from a perusal of the
adoption deed that apart from the natural guardians of the
appellant-defendant who had given the appellant-defendant in
adoption to Nanuwa there were other persons who had signed
the deed. Even otherwise, the view taken by the High Court
with regard to the deed in question and the provisions of
Section 16 of the Act appears to be contrary to what has been
said by this Court in Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva, (2013) 4
SCC 97, particularly what has been recorded in paras 31 and
34 of the Report which may be reproduced as under: (SCC pp.
Section 90 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Kamla Rani vs Ram Lalit Rai @ Lalak Rai (D) Thr. Lrs. on 17 July, 2017
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamla Rani v.
Ram Lalit Rai, (2018) 9 SCC 663 has observed 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 adoption, long duration of time during
which a person is treated as adopted cannot be ignored and by
itself may in the circumstances carry a presumption in favour
21 LPA No.504/2024
2025:JHHC:20125-DB
of adoption. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
is being quoted as under:
Balinki Padhano And Anr. vs Gopakrishna Padhano And Ors. on 16 September, 1963
A
Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Balinki
Padhano v. Gopakrishna Padhano [Balinki
Padhano v. Gopakrishna Padhano, 1963 SCC OnLine
Ori 33 : 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."