Adoption Deed Not Must If Conditions Of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act Properly Complied: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said that an adoption deed or registered document is not a must to prove the adoption of a child. If conditions of valid adoptions as required under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are established, it is sufficient to prove the adoption. A Single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed an appeal filed by one N.L. Manjunatha who...
The Karnataka High Court has said that an adoption deed or registered document is not a must to prove the adoption of a child. If conditions of valid adoptions as required under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are established, it is sufficient to prove the adoption.
A Single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed an appeal filed by one N.L. Manjunatha who had challenged the order of the trial court and the first appellate court decreeing the suit for partition of ancestral property, in favour of the B.L. Ananda (respondent herein), who is the brother of the appellant.
The primary contention raised by the appellant was that Ananda was given in adoption to his maternal uncle, namely, Nanjegowda when Ananda was 7-years old and after adoption he resided in the house of his adopted father. In the voter list he has been described as the son of Nanjegowda. He even performed the final rituals and Nanjegowda has executed a Will (Ex.D.14) in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing his properties.
Further, it was contended that the trial Court and the first appellate Court only on the ground that adoption is not witnessed by a deed, have rejected the contention of the appellants.
However, this claim was opposed by the respondent stating that he was the foster son of Nanjegowda and not adopted. It was contended that even Nanjegowda's Will stated that respondent is the foster son who is the testator of the said Will. It was further argued that evidence does not establish the ceremonies of adoption, i.e., giving and taking of the child and consent of the parents. It was also submitted that in the absence of deed, Appellant has to establish ceremonies, giving and taking of the child and consent of parents to prove adoption.
The bench noted that admittedly, there is no document witnessing the alleged adoption.
Referring to Section 16 of the Act it said,
“Section 16 of the Act provides presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption. Provisions of the Act does not provide that the adoption is not valid in the absence of an adoption deed. Section 16 of the Act only provides that if any document registered is produced before the Court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the Court shall presume that adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved.”
Thus it concluded that the only point that the Appellant has to establish is that there were ceremonies of giving and taking the adoptive child by his natural parents to the adoptive parents and there was consent of natural parents and wife of adoptive father.
On going through the record and evidence the bench noted that witnesses had not stated that there was consent of Respondent's natural mother, there is no evidence regarding the presence of said natural mother and adoptive mothers at the time of adoption function.
Then it held “Therefore, the evidence on record does not establish the ceremony of giving and taking and consent of the natural mother and adoptive mothers. More so in the Will (Ex.D.14) executed by Sri. Nanjegowda the plaintiff Ananda has been described as faster son (foster).”
It added “If really Nanjegowda had adopted the plaintiff – Ananda, he ought to have been described in the Will (Ex.D.14) as his adoptive son…the said statement made by Nanjegowda in the Will (Ex.D.14) will clearly establish that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of Nanjegowda and he is the faster son of said Nanjegowda.”
Then the court opined,
“It is the act of adoption and not the adoption deed which confers the status of the adopted son. A perfectly valid adoption deed can be made without an adoption and any status which the adopted son gets by virtue of adoption is due to the proper ceremonies being performed and not any deed passed as evidence of that adoption.”
Dismissing the appeal the bench said “In the case on hand there is no adoption deed. Even the evidence led has not established that ceremonies of giving of the adopted child by the natural father and taking of child by the adoptive father. Even there is no whisper regarding the consent of the natural mother and adoptive mothers either in the pleadings or in the evidence."
Therefore, it concluded the trial Court rightly held that Appellant has failed to prove the adoption of Respondent by Nanjegowda.
Case Title: N L Manjunatha & ANR AND B L Ananda
Case NO: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2009
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
Date of Order: 10-07-2023
Appearance: Advocate Syed Akbar Pasha for Appellants.
Advocate Gangadharaiah A N for Respondent.