The Bombay High Court has clarified that the presumption of a valid adoption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), cannot arise merely from the registration of an adoption deed. It emphasized that for this presumption to apply, the deed must be signed by both the person giving the child and the person taking the child in adoption.
“Only because the adoption deed is a registered document it cannot be accepted as having presumptive value under Section 16,” the Court stated. “The presumption is applicable only if the document records the particulars of the adoption and is signed by both parties involved.”
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Issues John Doe Order to Stop Sale of Fake ‘Closeup’ and ‘Pepsodent’ Products
Justice Gauri Godse made this observation while deciding the second appeal in the case of Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs. Uttam Ganu Nale & Others (Second Appeal No. 13 of 1994). The appellant (defendant no. 2) had claimed exclusive ownership of the disputed suit properties, asserting that he was the adopted son of Pandurang and his wife (defendant no. 1).
Initially, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition, accepting the appellant’s claim of adoption. However, the first Appellate Court reversed this decision, disbelieving the appellant's adoption claim but still granting a 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs and the appellant in the suit properties.
In the second appeal, Justice Godse examined whether the adoption claim was legally valid and whether the suit properties were ancestral or self-acquired. The Court noted discrepancies and lack of crucial details in the defendants’ pleadings and evidence.
The appellant had argued that the adoption occurred during Pandurang’s lifetime and was later confirmed through a registered adoption deed executed by defendant no. 1 (the adoptive mother). However, the Court observed that:
- There was no clarity on the exact date or year of adoption.
- The adoption deed stated the child was given in adoption by Ganu (the biological father), but records showed Ganu died in 1953—seven years before the supposed adoption date in 1960.
- There was no mention of consent from the biological mother, nor her signature on the deed.
“In the present case, admittedly, the document is not signed by the person giving in adoption. On the date of the adoption deed, the biological mother was alive; thus, in the absence of her signature, the presumption under Section 16 shall not be applicable.”
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Orders BMC to Pay ₹2 Lakh for Demolishing Cancer Patient Shelter Without Due Process
The Court highlighted that essential conditions under Sections 6 and 11 of HAMA—such as the actual giving and taking of the child and valid consent from biological parents—were not fulfilled. None of the witnesses provided convincing or specific evidence of such a ceremony. The oral testimony of Janabai, a witness cited by the defense, lacked clarity due to the long lapse of time and did not conclusively prove that a valid adoption took place during Pandurang’s lifetime.
Additionally, the Court addressed the argument that the adoption deed’s registration itself should suffice to establish a valid adoption. Refuting this, Justice Godse cited established precedents, stating that without fulfilling the statutory requirements, the presumption under Section 16 cannot apply.
“The presumption under Section 16 is rebuttable, and if the document does not meet essential legal standards, it cannot serve as valid proof of adoption.”
Consequently, the High Court ruled that the burden to prove the adoption rested with the defendants, and they had failed to discharge it. Since Pandurang and his wife had no biological children and the adoption claim was not legally valid, the Court held that the properties would devolve equally among the surviving legal heirs.
The Court partially modified the first Appellate Court’s decision and declared that plaintiffs no. 1 and 2, along with defendant no. 2, are each entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit properties.
Case title: Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs. Uttam Ganu Nale & Anr (Second Appeal No. 13 Of 1994)
