LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of adoption and will in property disputes
CASE TYPE: Civil
Case Name: Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, through LRs.)
Judgment Date: 20 November 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1004
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J and Sanjay Kumar, J
Can a registered adoption deed and a will, both executed within a short period, guarantee inheritance rights? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a case involving a property dispute, where a minor claimed rights based on these documents. The Court examined the validity of both the adoption and the will, considering various legal and factual aspects. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute concerning the estate of late Venkubayamma. Moturu Nalini Kanth, a minor, claimed ownership of Venkubayamma’s properties based on a registered Adoption Deed dated 20 April 1982, and a registered Will Deed dated 3 May 1982. Nalini Kanth was born on 10 July 1981, making him less than a year old when these documents were executed. He asserted that Venkubayamma had adopted him and bequeathed all her properties to him through the will. The suit was filed by Nalini Kanth through his guardian, seeking a declaration of his title and possession of the properties. The primary contesting party was Gainedi Kaliprasad, Venkubayamma’s grandson through her deceased daughter, Varalaxmi, who disputed the validity of both the adoption and the will.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10 July 1981 | Moturu Nalini Kanth was born. |
| 26 May 1981 | Venkubayamma executes a Will Deed in favor of Kaliprasad (Ex. A19). |
| 18 April 1982 | Alleged adoption ceremony of Nalini Kanth at Raghunadha Swamy Temple, Berhampur. |
| 20 April 1982 | Registered Adoption Deed (Ex. A9) executed. |
| 03 May 1982 | Registered Will Deed (Ex. A10) executed by Venkubayamma in favor of Nalini Kanth. |
| February 1982 | Kaliprasad’s marriage was performed by Venkubayamma. |
| 26 July 1982 | Venkubayamma passed away. |
| 16 September 1982 | Affidavits of Balaga Sivanarayana Rao (Ex. C1) and Pydi Appala Suranna (Ex. C2) were created. |
| 1983 | O.S. No. 113 of 1983 was filed by Nalini Kanth, through his guardian. |
| 30 September 1989 | Trial Court ruled in favor of Nalini Kanth. |
| 11 December 2006 | High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled against Nalini Kanth. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, initially ruled in favor of Nalini Kanth on 30 September 1989, decreeing the suit in his favor. However, on appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed this decision on 11 December 2006, ruling against Nalini Kanth and allowing the appeal filed by Gainedi Kaliprasad. The High Court’s decision led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation of the following legal provisions:
- Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section outlines the requirements for executing an unprivileged will. It states that a will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix their mark to the will, or receive personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark from the testator.
“63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. – Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules: – (a).…… (b).…… (c).The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” - Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 68 requires that a document required by law to be attested cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution. Section 69 provides an exception when no attesting witness can be found, allowing the document to be proven by showing that the attestation of one witness is in their handwriting and the signature of the person executing the document is in their handwriting.
’68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. – If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. Section 69. Proof where no attesting witness found. – If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.’ - Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section establishes a presumption in favor of registered documents related to adoption, stating that if a document is registered and signed by the giver and taker of the child, the court shall presume the adoption was made in compliance with the Act, unless disproved.
‘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.’ - Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section outlines the conditions for a valid adoption, including the requirement that the child must be actually given and taken in adoption with the intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth to the family of its adoption.
‘11. Other conditions for a valid adoption. – In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with: ― (i)to (v) ….; (vi)the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned child or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place or family where it has been brought up to the family of its adoption: Provided that the performance of datta homam shall not be essential to the validity of adoption ’
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of Moturu Nalini Kanth (Appellant):
- Nalini Kanth’s primary argument was that he was the adopted son of Venkubayamma, as evidenced by the registered Adoption Deed (Ex. A9), and that Venkubayamma had bequeathed all her properties to him through a registered Will Deed (Ex. A10). He claimed that the adoption ceremony took place on 18 April 1982, at Raghunadha Swamy Temple in Berhampur, and that all customary rituals were performed. The Adoption Deed was executed on 20 April 1982, and the Will Deed was executed on 3 May 1982.
- He presented several witnesses, including his natural father (PW2), the purohit who performed the adoption ceremonies (PW7), and a photographer (PW4), to support his claims. The witnesses testified to the adoption ceremony and the execution of the will. Photographs (Exs. A2 to A4) were produced as evidence of the adoption ceremony.
- Nalini Kanth relied on the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which favors registered adoption documents. He argued that the burden was on Kaliprasad to disprove the adoption. He also argued that the Will was validly executed and attested.
- He argued that the thumb impressions on the Adoption Deed and the Will Deed were identical to the thumb print of Venkubayamma in the Sub-Registrar’s record pertaining to Ex. A19 Will.
Arguments on behalf of Gainedi Kaliprasad (Respondent):
- Kaliprasad contested the validity of both the Adoption Deed and the Will Deed. He argued that Venkubayamma was very old and senile in 1982, and was not in a position to exercise free will. He claimed that the adoption was not true, valid, or binding on him.
- He contended that the Will was invalid because it was not properly attested as required by law. He also asserted that the adoption was a sham and that Venkubayamma had always treated him as her sole heir.
- Kaliprasad argued that Venkubayamma had brought him up, got his marriage performed, and always treated him as her sole heir. He pointed out that the adoption ceremony was conducted in a clandestine manner without inviting any of Venkubayamma’s relatives from Srikakulam.
- He further argued that the woman in the photographs (Exs. A2 to A4) was not Venkubayamma, as she appeared much younger than Venkubayamma’s age at that time. He also disputed the thumb marks on the Adoption Deed and the Will Deed, claiming they were not Venkubayamma’s.
- Kaliprasad argued that the scribe of the will (PW6) stated that he did not see Venkubayamma sign the will and that the instructions for the will were given by another woman.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Moturu Nalini Kanth (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions by Gainedi Kaliprasad (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Adoption |
✓ Registered Adoption Deed (Ex. A9) creates a presumption of validity. ✓ Adoption ceremony performed with customary rituals at Raghunadha Swamy Temple. ✓ Witnesses testified to the adoption ceremony. ✓ Photographs (Exs. A2 to A4) as evidence of the adoption ceremony. |
✓ Venkubayamma was old and senile, incapable of free will. ✓ Adoption was not valid or binding. ✓ Ceremony was conducted secretly without inviting Venkubayamma’s relatives. ✓ The woman in the photographs was not Venkubayamma. |
| Validity of Will |
✓ Registered Will Deed (Ex. A10) validly executed. ✓ Venkubayamma was in a sound state of mind. |
✓ Will was not properly attested as required by law. ✓ Scribe of the will (PW6) stated that he did not see Venkubayamma sign the will. ✓ Instructions for the will were given by another woman. |
| Inheritance Rights | ✓ As the adopted son, Nalini Kanth is the sole heir to Venkubayamma’s properties. |
✓ Kaliprasad was brought up by Venkubayamma and treated as her sole heir. ✓ Venkubayamma performed his marriage. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Venkubayamma and the Adoption Deed dated 19.04.1982 ( sic) is true?
- Whether the registered Will dated 03.05.1982 executed by late Venkubayamma is true and valid?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit properties?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Venkubayamma and the Adoption Deed dated 19.04.1982 ( sic) is true? | No | The court found that the adoption was not proved in accordance with law due to suspicious circumstances, lack of convincing evidence of ‘giving and taking’ of the child, and discrepancies in the evidence. |
| Whether the registered Will dated 03.05.1982 executed by late Venkubayamma is true and valid? | No | The court held that the Will was not proved in accordance with law, as neither of the attesting witnesses was examined, and the evidence did not satisfy the requirements of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also noted suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. |
| Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit properties? | No | Since the adoption and the will were not proved, the court ruled that Nalini Kanth was not entitled to any right or share in Venkubayamma’s properties. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Legal Point | How the authority was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91 (Supreme Court of India) | Requirements for proving a Will | The Court cited this case to emphasize that a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix their mark to the Will or must have received personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark from the testator. |
| Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, (2008) 15 SCC 365 (Supreme Court of India) | Requirements for proving a Will | This case was cited to reaffirm the principles laid down in Janki Narayan Bhoir regarding the proper attestation of a Will as required by Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. |
| Ramesh Verma (Dead) through LRs. vs. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by LRs. and another, (2017) 1 SCC 257 (Supreme Court of India) | Proof of a Will | The Court referred to this case to highlight that a Will must be proved in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act, and the propounder must show that the testator was in a sound state of mind and understood the nature of the disposition. |
| H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 (Supreme Court of India) | Onus to prove a Will | This 3-Judge Bench judgment was cited to emphasize that the onus to prove a Will is on the propounder and that the propounder must prove that the testator was in a sound state of mind, understood the nature and effect of the dispositions, and signed the document of their own free will. This case also highlighted that suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will can increase the burden on the propounder. |
| Jagdish Chand Sharma vs. Narain Singh Saini (Dead) through LRs. and others, (2015) 8 SCC 615 (Supreme Court of India) | Stringent requirements for proving a Will | The Court used this case to emphasize the stringent requirements for proving a will and to highlight the importance of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act to prevent manipulation. It also discussed Section 71 of the Evidence Act in the context of attesting witnesses. |
| Bhagat Ram and another vs. Suresh and others, (2003) 12 SCC 35 (Supreme Court of India) | Proof of a Will | This case was cited to reiterate that a Will must be proved as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and the proviso to this section, which dispenses with the mandatory requirement of calling an attesting witness for registered documents, does not apply to Wills. |
| Benga Behera and another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others, (2007) 9 SCC 728 (Supreme Court of India) | Proof of execution of a Will | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the proof of execution of a will requires at least two attesting witnesses, and at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution and attestation. |
| Ashutosh Samanta (Dead) by LRs. and others vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and others, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 255 (Supreme Court of India) | Section 69 of the Evidence Act | The Court referred to this case to discuss the applicability of Section 69 of the Evidence Act when attesting witnesses are deceased or cannot be found. However, the court distinguished this case on facts, as there was no contest to the Will in that case. |
| Ved Mitra Verma vs. Dharam Deo Verma, (2014) 15 SCC 578 (Supreme Court of India) | Section 69 of the Evidence Act | This case was cited to show that the examination of the Sub-Registrar, who witnessed the signing of the Will, can be sufficient to prove the Will under Section 69 of the Evidence Act. However, the court distinguished this case on facts, as the Sub-Registrar’s evidence was not sufficient in the present case. |
| Apoline D’ Souza vs. John D’ Souza, (2007) 7 SCC 225 (Supreme Court of India) | Proof of Attestation | This case was cited to emphasize that proof of attestation of a Will is a mandatory requirement under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and the mode of proving due execution depends on the facts of each case. |
| Naresh Charan Das Gupta vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta, AIR 1955 SC 363 (Supreme Court of India) | Attestation of a Will | The court referred to this case to discuss the circumstances under which the attestation of a will can be considered valid, even if the witnesses do not explicitly state that they signed in the presence of the testator. |
| Bhagavathiammal vs. Marimuthu Ammal and others, 2010 (2) Madras Weekly Notes (Civil) 704 (Madras High Court) | Difference between Section 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act | The Court cited this case to explain the difference between Section 68 and Section 69 of the Evidence Act, clarifying that Section 69 does not specify the mode of proof and that the handwriting can be spoken to by a person familiar with it. |
| G. Vasu vs. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri, AIR 1987 Andhra Pradesh 139 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) | Presumptions of Fact and Law | This Full Bench judgment was cited to explain the difference between presumptions of fact and law and to clarify that a presumption of fact is rebuttable by evidence to the contrary. |
| Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35 (Supreme Court of India) | Rebutting a Presumption | This case was cited to affirm the view of G. Vasu vs. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri and to explain that a presumption can be disproved by bringing on record facts and circumstances that make its non-existence probable. |
| Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. and another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. and others, (2013) 4 SCC 97 (Supreme Court of India) | Proof of Adoption Deed | The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the mere signature on an adoption document is not sufficient, and the validity of the document must be proved. |
| Kishori Lal vs. Mst. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504 (Supreme Court of India) | Evidence to support Adoption | This 3-Judge Bench judgment was cited to emphasize that evidence to support an adoption must be free from suspicion and consistent. The court noted that the lack of publicity for the adoption in this case made it difficult to believe. |
| Govinda vs. Chimabai and others, AIR 1968 Mysore 309 (Mysore High Court) | Proof of Adoption | The Court cited this case to clarify that the mere registration of an adoption deed is not proof of adoption, and that the factum of adoption must be proved by oral evidence of giving and taking of the child. |
| Padmalav Achariya and another vs. Srimatyia Fakira Debya and others, AIR 1931 Privy Council 81 (Privy Council) | Suspicious Circumstances in Adoption | The Privy Council decision was cited to highlight that the testimony of partisan relatives cannot be relied upon to prove adoption when there are suspicious circumstances. |
| Jai Singh vs. Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC 634 (Supreme Court of India) | Section 16 of the Act of 1956 | This case was cited to explain that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act of 1956 is rebuttable and that the court can look into evidence contra the adoption. It also emphasized that ‘giving and taking in adoption’ is essential for a valid adoption. |
| Mst. Deu and others vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (1998) 8 SCC 701 (Supreme Court of India) | Section 16 of the Act of 1956 | This case was cited to reiterate that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act of 1956 is rebuttable and that it is open to those who challenge the adoption to disprove it through independent proceedings. |
| Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Rup Kanwar (Smt) alias Rup Kanwar Bai, AIR 1961 SC 1378 (Supreme Court of India) | Giving and taking in adoption | This case was cited to emphasize that the ceremony of giving and taking is essential for a valid adoption and that the physical act of handing over the child can be delegated. |
| M. Vanaja vs. M. Sarla Devi (Dead), (2020) 5 SCC 307 (Supreme Court of India) | Conditions for a valid adoption | The court referred to this case to reiterate that compliance with the conditions in Chapter 1 of the Act of 1956, including the consent of the wife and the ceremony of giving and taking, is mandatory for a valid adoption. |
| Dhanno wd/o Balbir Singh vs. Tuhi Ram (Died) represented by his LRs., AIR 1996 P & H 203 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) | Section 16 of the Act of 1956 | This case was cited to emphasize that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act of 1956 is rebuttable and that the factum of adoption must be proved through sufficient evidence. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Nalini Kanth’s claim of adoption based on registered Adoption Deed (Ex. A9). | The Court held that the adoption was not proved in accordance with law due to suspicious circumstances and lack of convincing evidence of ‘giving and taking’ of the child. The presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 was rebutted. |
| Nalini Kanth’s claim of inheritance based on registered Will Deed (Ex. A10). | The Court held that the Will was not proved in accordance with law as neither of the attesting witnesses was examined. The evidence did not satisfy the requirements of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court also noted suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. |
| Kaliprasad’s argument that Venkubayamma was senile and incapable of free will. | The Court did not make a specific finding on Venkubayamma’s mental state but noted that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and the adoption made it difficult to believe that Venkubayamma would have disinherited her grandson. |
| Kaliprasad’s claim that the adoption was a sham. | The Court agreed that the adoption was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was not believable. |
| Kaliprasad’s claim that the Will was not properly attested. | The Court upheld this claim, finding that the Will was not proved in accordance with law, as the attesting witnesses were not examined. |
| Kaliprasad’s claim that he was Venkubayamma’s sole heir. | The Court did not make a finding on this point but held that Nalini Kanth was not entitled to any right or share in Venkubayamma’s properties. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on a number of authorities to establish the legal principles regarding the proof of a will and adoption. The Court emphasized that mere registration of a will or adoption deed does not guarantee its validity. The Court cited Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam [CITATION], Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others [CITATION], and Ramesh Verma (Dead) through LRs. vs. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by LRs. and another [CITATION] to underscore that a will must be attested by two witnesses, who must have seen the testator sign or receive an acknowledgment of the signature. The Court also relied on H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others [CITATION] to emphasize the onus on the propounder of the will to prove the testator’s sound state of mind and free will. The Court further cited Jagdish Chand Sharma vs. Narain Singh Saini (Dead) through LRs. and others [CITATION], Bhagat Ram and another vs. Suresh and others [CITATION], and Benga Behera and another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others [CITATION] to highlight the stringent requirements for proving a will under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Regarding the adoption, the Court referred to Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. and another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. and others [CITATION] to emphasize that the mere signature on an adoption document is not sufficient, and the validity of the document must be proven. The Court also relied on Kishori Lal vs. Mst. Chaltibai [CITATION] and Govinda vs. Chimabai and others [CITATION] to state that evidence supporting an adoption must be free from suspicion and consistent, and that the factum of adoption must be proved by oral evidence of giving and taking of the child. The Court referred to Padmalav Achariya and another vs. Srimatyia Fakira Debya and others [CITATION] to highlight that the testimony of partisan relatives cannot be relied upon when there are suspicious circumstances. The Court also cited Jai Singh vs. Shakuntala [CITATION] and Mst. Deu and others vs. Laxmi Narayan and others [CITATION] to clarify that the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is rebuttable and that the court can look into evidence contra the adoption. The Court relied on Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Rup Kanwar (Smt) alias Rup Kanwar Bai [CITATION] to emphasize that the ceremony of giving and taking is essential for a valid adoption. Finally, the Court referred to M. Vanaja vs. M. Sarla Devi (Dead) [CITATION] to reiterate that compliance with the conditions in Chapter 1 of the Act of 1956, including the consent of the wife and the ceremony of giving and taking, is mandatory for a valid adoption.
Final Order
The Supreme Court, after considering all the evidence and the legal principles, dismissed the appeal. The Court upheld the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which had ruled against Moturu Nalini Kanth. The Supreme Court found that both the adoption and the will were not proved in accordance with law, and therefore, Nalini Kanth was not entitled to any right or share in Venkubayamma’s properties.
Flowchart