Adoption ceremony is the strict proof of adoption

Ashutosh Rajput | Hidayatullah National Law University | 14th May 2020

M. Vajana v. M. Sarla Devi [Civil Appeal No. 8814 of 2010]

Facts: 

The appellant’s natural parents died when she was young. Her mother was the sister of M.Sarla Devi (respondent herein). She/appellant was bought up as the daughter of the respondent and her husband late Narshimulu Naidu. The name of the respondent and her husband was also mentioned in as parents in the governments, school and college records. Narshimulu died intestate on 19.08.2003 and accordingly the appellant and the respondent succeeded half share of the property respectively. Subsequently, the relation of the respondent and the appellant turned sour therefore, the respondent made an attempt to alienate the whole property, this is the reason of the appellant filing the case before the civil court and pleading that she is the adopted daughter hence she has a right of alienation in ancestral property. But the city court dismissed the suit on 1.09.2006 and delivered the judgment in favour of the respondent. The court relied on sections 7 to 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (herein referred to as ‘Act’), and held that the appellant could not prove the ceremony of adoption. The High Court too dismissed the appeal filed against the trial court’s judgment.  

Issue: 

Whether the appellant is adopted by the respondent?

Arguments:

By the appellant: 

1. The record which shows her name as daughter of the respondent and the appellant is in itself a proof that the appellant is treated as a daughter.
2. The appellant was young at the time of adoption hence; she cannot prove the manner in which her adoption took place.
3. In the case of L.Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. V. Smt. Triben Devi & Ors.^[1] it was held that subsequent events can be taken into account for the purpose of proving adoption.

By the respondent: 

1. The factum of proving adoption under section 7 to section 11 of the Act has not been proved by the appellant.
2. No ceremony is mentioned in the pleading regarding the process of giving and taking of the appellant.
3. Mother of the respondent also stated that the appellant was never adopted.

Judgment: 

Section 6 of the Act enshrines for the validity of the adoption wherein the process of giving and taking has to be made and section 7 to 11 deals with the consent of wife giving adoption which has to be taken and proof of the ceremony taking place while adoption is being made. Herein, the appellant herself admitted that she does not have proof of the ceremony hence it can be concluded that no adoption is made. And relying on the case of L.Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. V. Smt. Triben Devi & Ors. will not suit today’s legislation and therefore it will not apply in today’s scenario as this case dates back to 1892 and HAMA (Act) was enacted in 1956 and the same will be relied upon in today’s scenario as this legislation enacted after the former case. Hence, there is no error in the High Court’s judgment and appeal is dismissed.

^[1] L.Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. V. Smt. Triben Devi & Ors. 1892