TITLE: MOTURU NALINI KANTH V. GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.)
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2435 OF 2010
DECIDED ON: 20 NOVEMBER 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Hon’ble Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar state that T “the statute 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’, per this Court, have to be ascertained in proper perspective and as such, the presumption cannot but be said to be a rebuttable presumption. This Court further noted the mandate of Section 11 (vi) of the Act of 1956 and held that the ‘give and take in adoption’ is a requirement which stands as a sine qua non for a valid adoption”.
Brief Facts:
In the dispute over Venkubayamma’s properties, Nalini Kanth claims through adoption and a Will, contested by her grandson. Witnesses provide conflicting testimonies, one coerced into signing an affidavit. Legal analysis emphasizes proper attestation for Wills and prioritizes evidence in adoption cases. Suspicious circumstances surround the documents, demanding strong, unsuspicious proof. The court highlights compliance with adoption laws and challenges to registered deeds. Evidence fails to conclusively prove Nalini Kanth’s adoption, with discrepancies and doubts, leading to the denial of her claim to the properties.
Court’s Observation and Analysis:
The Trial Court and High Court scrutinize the evidence, emphasizing the legal requirements for proving a Will. The discussion underscores the importance of proper attestation by witnesses, citing Sections 63, 68, and 71 of relevant Acts. Various court cases are cited to highlight the significance of proving the authenticity of a Will following legal procedures.
The Evidence Act is invoked, stressing the need for more than just a random witness to prove a Will. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and Adoption Deed raise doubts about their validity, leading the court to demand strong evidence free of suspicion. The court prioritizes evidence over rigid rules in adoption cases, emphasizing the importance of proving adoption through traditional ceremonies.
Registered adoption deeds are presumed valid but can be challenged with evidence. Compliance with adoption laws is deemed mandatory, and challenges necessitate disproving the registered deed with substantial evidence. Doubt is cast on a specific adoption case due to secretive circumstances and inconsistencies in testimonies and photographs.
The court concludes that the evidence does not conclusively prove Nalini Kanth’s adoption, highlighting discrepancies, inconsistencies, and doubts about the validity of the adoption. Consequently, Nalini Kanth is not considered an heir by adoption and is not entitled to claim rights to Venkubayamma’s properties.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
