Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)Adoption Regulations, 2017
Section 7 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in Adoption Regulations, 2017 [Entire Act]
Mst. Kirpal Kaur vs Bachan Singh And Others on 15 November, 1957
Kirpal Kuar v. Bachan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 199. The trial Court framed an issue on the question of consent.
Md. Aftabuddin Khan And Ors. vs Smt. Chandan Bilasini And Anr. on 11 October, 1976
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.
Smt. Gopi And Anr. vs Madanlal on 30 April, 1969
17. The Court below committed illegality in misplacing the burden on the defendants to disprove the factum of adoption and invalidity in it. He was not justified in drawing inference against them for not examining Jatibai as their witnesses. It is well settled that the primary burden to prove the adoption and its validity rests on the person who seeks to displace the natural succession by alleging his adoption. See Smt. Gopi v. Madanlal, AIR 1970 Raj 190.
A.T. Raghava Chariar vs O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar on 5 April, 1916
The plaintiff was required to pay the debt of Rs. 3000/- to Ganpat's creditor; whereas Ganpat bound himself not to dispose of property without the plaintiff's consent. The law does not conceive of any contract with a minor. It is true that a minor is not disqualified to be a purchaser or a mortgagee. Raghava v. Srinivasa, (1917) ILR 40 Mad 308 : (AIR 1917 Mad 630) (FB). But where the contract imports a covenant by the minor to pay rent or other reciprocal obligation, the contract is void.
Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi vs Mohan Bikram Shah on 8 May, 1931
Even if document is admissible, in Chhatra Kumari Devi v. Mohan Bikram Shah, AIR 1931 PC 196, it was held that if there was a breach of agreement, the adoptee only had a right to sue his adoptee father for
compensation. Therefore, the plaintiff could not sustain his claim against the transferee even on the basis of agreement Ex. P. 15.