JAI SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTALA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 14,2002
JAI SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
SHAKUNTALA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
H.P. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. TARSEM LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-120] [REFERRED TO]PARAMJOTA VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2023-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SANJAY KUMAR BARUA, S/O LATE BIRENDRA KUMAR BARUA RESIDENT OF PANBAZAR, S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD, GUWAHATI VS. SHRI PRADIP KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O LATE JAMINI KANTA GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF M.G. ROAD, NEAR BANESWAR TEMPLE, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI [LAWS(GAU)-2015-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. C ARUNA DEVI [LAWS(APH)-2011-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
HASTALLOY INDIA LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-2012-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMALBHAI RAMCHANDBHAI DHOS VS. VIRABHAI JETHABHAI BHUT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDOSS VS. SUBBAYYAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-970] [REFERRED TO]
D C CHENCHIAH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUNAN VS. MUNUSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
S.GEORGE VS. S.ALPHONSE RANI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
S MANICKAM VS. INDIAN BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-204] [REFERRED TO]
C.M.T. GOVINDARAJAN VS. S. PADMAVATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
MARIMUTHU VS. PICHAI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-244] [REFERRED TO]
SIVAGANGAI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SIVAGANGAI MUNICIPALITY, SIVAGANGAI, SIVAGANGAI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SIVAGANGAI MUNICIPALITY, SIVAGANGAI VS. C. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-434] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL MAHANT VS. NAVRATAN DAS [LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-167] [REFERRED TO]
PICHAIPILLAI VS. VENKATACHALAM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
PULLAIAH GOUNDER VS. ANANDHAYAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
N.NATARAJ VS. KUPPUSAMY GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. NAGESHWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-274] [REFERRED TO]
IDAM SWARAJYA LAXMI VS. IDAM VANI [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, (PREVENTIVE) KENDRIA BHAWAN SECT-H VS. MAA GAURI TRADERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-327] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL VS. MANBHARU [LAWS(HPH)-2011-1-193] [REFERRED TO]
S.RAMASAMY VS. S.SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-159] [REFERRED TO]
VETTAIKARAN @ POONGA GOUNDER VS. NANJAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-180] [REFERRED TO]
T. BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. M. KANTHASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-137] [REFERRED TO]
G.DEVARAJI VS. SELVARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-195] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGAM VS. KUNCHITHAPATHAM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
K.P. ANNADURAI VS. KALAISELVI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-174] [REFERRED TO]
K MURUGESAN VS. K GOVINDAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-357] [REFERRED]
SIVALINGAM VS. SOMU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. GUDDI DANGI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAIJIJI BABAJI THAKOR VS. VINODBHAI PURSOTTAMDAS MATADAR [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-395] [REFERRED TO]
ST. MARYS ORTHODOX CHURCH VS. THANKAMANI RAJAN [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-235] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS VS. JAG DYAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-134] [REFERRED]
KANTA BAI VS. UMASHANKAR [LAWS(MPH)-2019-11-310] [REFERRED TO]
PREMPRAKASH GUPTA VS. HEMLATA GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-249] [REFERRED TO]
P. SHANKAR RAO VS. PUBLIC IN GENERAL [LAWS(CHH)-2009-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARAJAN VS. VIJAYA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
G.GOVINDARAJ VS. R.KOTHANDARAMA GOKULDOSS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
A.NATARAJAN VS. SAKUNTHALA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
IDAM SWARAJYA LAXMI VS. IDAM VANI [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
DEEN DAYAL VS. SANJEEV KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
MAGANBHAI GOVINDBHAI PARMAR-DECD VS. RAMANBHAI GAMBHIRBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-56] [REFERRED TO]
HARCHAND S/O CHAMPALAL GAVLI VS. MADHUBAI D/O CHAMPALAL [LAWS(MPH)-2023-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
MALKHAN SINGH LODHI VS. JANKI LODHI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN PRASAD & ORS. VS. SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
SELVARAJ AND ORS. VS. KANAGAMMAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-448] [REFERRED TO]
ANJAN BARMAN CHOUDHURY VS. RANJAN BARMAN CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-2012-6-119] [REFERRED TO]
R CHINNASAMY VS. CHINNA RAMASAMY GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBHAU G KPSHIRE VS. SARDARSHINGH R TURE [LAWS(BOM)-2013-6-129] [REFERRED TO]
BANDI VEERA SWAMY VS. PAMULA BASAVAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
PRAN NATH & ANR. VS. VED PAUL & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2010-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
SADHU RAM AND ORS VS. GOBIND AND ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-383] [REFERRED]
DINESH KUMAR VS. YUSUF ALI [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
FELIX @ SANKAR VS. A.JOSPHINE [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-100] [REFERRED TO]
VINNY VS. D.BALASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN SINGH VS. JAWAHAR SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-12-140] [REFERRED TO]
LALITHA VS. V ARJUNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-182] [REFERRED TO]
V RAJA VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIDA KHATOON BIBI VS. DEBILAL SHAW [LAWS(CAL)-2004-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPCHAND VS. PHOOLCHAND MANJHI [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-215] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATLAL VS. CHHERKINBAI [LAWS(CHH)-2018-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
V.BASKARAN VS. MANJULA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-177] [REFERRED TO]
M.MARIMUTHU VS. KUPPAYAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
K THANGAVEL VS. RAMASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-166] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-257] [REFERRED TO]
MOTURU NALINI KANTH VS. GAINEDI KALIPRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2023-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. VS. BAJRANG LAL [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
LRS OF JAGDISH LAL PUJARI VS. LRS OF RAGHUNANDAN PUJARI [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL SAHANI VS. VED PAUL [LAWS(J&K)-2010-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE HOSHIARPUR VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMINI DEVI VS. CHOUDHARY MAHTO [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
JAN MOHAMMAD VS. MOHAMMAD DEEN [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
S.RAMKUMAR VS. JAYASUNDARI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-182] [REFERRED TO]
P MANI VS. M SANGEETHA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-282] [REFERRED TO]
RITA AND ORS VS. JOHN D BRITTO AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-298] [REFERRED]
B VEERASWAMY VS. P BASAVAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-161] [REFERRED TO]
ANOKHILAL VS. SAJJAN SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
HAR PAL SINGH VS. SANTOSH KUMARI [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-261] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI VS. GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & 3 ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. BANWARI LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
PREM PRAKASH SABHERWAL VS. R.C. AGARWAL & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Banerjee, J. -
(1.)The matter under consideration pertains to the effect of statutory presumption as envisaged under S. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. For convenience sake it would be worthwhile to note the provision for its true purport. Section 16 reads as below :
"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.- Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any 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 the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved."
(2.)The section thus envisages a statutory presumption that in the event of there being a registered document pertaining to adoption there would be a presumption that adoption has been made in accordance with law. Mandate of the statute is rather definite since the Legislature has used "shall" instead of any other word of lesser significance. Incidentally, however the inclusion of the words "unless and until it is disproved" appearing at the end of the statutory provision has made the situation not that rigid but flexible enough to depend upon the evidence available on record in support of adoption. It is a matter of grave significance by reason of the factum of adoption and displacement of the person adopted from the natural succession - thus onus of proof is rather heavy. Statute has allowed some amount of flexibility, lest it turns out to be solely dependent on a registered adoption deed. The reason for inclusion of the words "unless and until it is disproved" shall have to be ascertained in its proper perspective and as such the presumption cannot but be said to be a rebuttable presumption. Statutory intent thus stands out to be rather expressive depicting therein that the presumption cannot be an irrebutable presumption by reason of the inclusion of the words just noticed above. On the wake of the aforesaid the observations of the learned single Judge in Modan Singh vs. Mst. Sham Kaur and others (AIR 1973 P and H 122) stands confirmed and we record our concurrence therewith.
(3.)In the contextual facts a deed of adoption dated 1-6-1973 came into existence and stands registered in the Sub-Registrar's office at Charkhi, Dadri in the State of Punjab.
"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.- Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any 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 the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved."
(2.)The section thus envisages a statutory presumption that in the event of there being a registered document pertaining to adoption there would be a presumption that adoption has been made in accordance with law. Mandate of the statute is rather definite since the Legislature has used "shall" instead of any other word of lesser significance. Incidentally, however the inclusion of the words "unless and until it is disproved" appearing at the end of the statutory provision has made the situation not that rigid but flexible enough to depend upon the evidence available on record in support of adoption. It is a matter of grave significance by reason of the factum of adoption and displacement of the person adopted from the natural succession - thus onus of proof is rather heavy. Statute has allowed some amount of flexibility, lest it turns out to be solely dependent on a registered adoption deed. The reason for inclusion of the words "unless and until it is disproved" shall have to be ascertained in its proper perspective and as such the presumption cannot but be said to be a rebuttable presumption. Statutory intent thus stands out to be rather expressive depicting therein that the presumption cannot be an irrebutable presumption by reason of the inclusion of the words just noticed above. On the wake of the aforesaid the observations of the learned single Judge in Modan Singh vs. Mst. Sham Kaur and others (AIR 1973 P and H 122) stands confirmed and we record our concurrence therewith.
(3.)In the contextual facts a deed of adoption dated 1-6-1973 came into existence and stands registered in the Sub-Registrar's office at Charkhi, Dadri in the State of Punjab.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.