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. 

Print Page