Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, adoption of child is not proved even though it was through registered adoption deed?

  Adoption Deed was registered, the presumption under Section 16 of the Act of 1956 attached to it and it was for Defendant No.1 to rebut that presumption. We find that he did so more than sufficiently. Mere registration of Adoption Deed did not absolve the person asserting such adoption from proving that fact by cogent evidence and the person contesting it from adducing evidence to the contrary. It is in this respect that various suspicious circumstances attached to the adoption ceremony assume significance. While so, Plaintiff witness, himself, stated that she did not invite any of her relations to attend the adoption ceremony. Normally, such occasions would not be kept secret or confidential as an adoption would usually be made with much pomp and celebration. The clandestine manner in which the alleged adoption is stated to have taken place raises a doubt but the same has not been adequately explained. Further, no evidence was adduced to prove that relations between owner and defendant no.1, her grandson, had fallen out. The document also did not record any reasons as to why owner was not happy with Defendant No.1, whose marriage she had performed a few months earlier.[Para 46]

50. The actual giving and taking of the child in adoption, being an essential requisite under Section 11(vi) of the Act of 1956, there was no convincing evidence of that act also in the case on hand. Interestingly, there were no pictures of the actual giving and taking of the child in adoption. The purohit was seen standing or sitting behind the others and the same could not be taken to be during the ceremony of giving and taking, as he would have stood/sat in front of them, chanting mantras and incantations as per shastras. Further, there were no photographs of the datta homam, though purohit claimed that he had performed the same. Even though it was no longer considered an essential ceremony, it was of significance when performed, and would have been captured for posterity by taking pictures. Strangely, though a professional photographer was stated to have been engaged for the purpose of taking pictures at the adoption ceremony, he took only three photographs and no more. This parsimony was not explained. Further, Plaintiff witness producing and marking receipt, supposedly issued by photographer to the temple, with no explanation as to how it came into her possession, also did not inspire confidence.

55. The adoption of Appellant-Plaintiff by deceased-owner was not proved in accordance with law despite the registration of Adoption Deed. The very adoption, itself, was not believable, given the multitude of suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The Appellant could not, therefore, be treated as her heir by adoption. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2010

Decided On: 20.11.2023

Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead) through L.Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1240/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to prove execution of will as per Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

 For the purposes of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix his signature in the Will. The very purpose and objective of insisting upon examination of at least one attesting witness to the Will would be entirely lost if such requirement is whittled down to just having a stray witness depose that he saw the attesting witness sign the Will. The evidence of the scribe of the disputed Will (PW 6) also casts a doubt on the identity of the executant as he specifically stated that a woman was sitting at a distance but he could not tell whether she was Venkubayamma and he could not also tell whether Venkubayamma had signed the document. In effect, Ex. A10 Will was not proved in accordance with law and it can have no legal consequence. Nalini Kanth's claim of absolute right and title over Venkubayamma's properties on the strength thereof has, therefore, no legs to stand upon and is liable to be rejected.

{Para 32}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2010

Decided On: 20.11.2023

Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead) through L.Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1240/2023.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if it has failed to explain injuries sustained by accused?

 We will first consider the issue with regard to non-explanation of injuries sustained by Accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar   MANU/SC/0136/1976 : (1976) 4 SCC 394, which case also arose out of a conviction Under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the Accused. This Court, after referring to the earlier judgments on the issue, observed thus:

12. .......It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the Accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:

(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the Accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the Accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the Accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [  MANU/SC/0217/1975 : (1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri.) 384] there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the Accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises. {Para 26}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1421 of 2015, 1470 of 2017, Criminal Appeal Nos. 775-776 of 2023 

Decided On: 14.03.2023

Nand Lal and Ors. Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: 2023 INSC 224, MANU/SC/0230/2023,2023(10 SCC) 470

Print Page

The Priority Principle: How Section 50 of the Registration Act Protects Property Rights

 Understanding why registered documents trump unregistered ones in Indian property law

Property disputes are among the most complex and emotionally charged legal battles in India. At the heart of many such disputes lies a fundamental question: when multiple documents claim rights over the same property, which one prevails? Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides a clear answer that has shaped Indian property law for over a century.

The Golden Rule of Property Documentation

Print Page