Supreme Court settles adoption custom in Jain Community: Ratanlal vs. Sundarabai (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2017
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: N. V. Ramana, J. and Amitava Roy, J.
Can a married man be validly adopted, especially within the Jain community? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute over the adoption of Ratanlal by his uncle, Govardhandas. The court examined whether the adoption was valid and whether the custom of adopting a married man was sufficiently proven. The bench comprised Justices N. V. Ramana and Amitava Roy, with the majority opinion authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over the adoption of Ratanlal, the appellant, by his paternal uncle, Govardhandas. Ratanlal had been living with Govardhandas since childhood. Govardhandas had a timber business where Ratanlal and other family members were inducted as partners. After Govardhandas’s death, his wife, Sundarabai, became a partner. When the other partners failed to give her share in the business, she issued a notice to all the partners to give accounts of the partnership firm and also to pay the amount of her share.

In 1984, the family of Chunilal, Ratanlal’s biological father, sent a notice to Sundarabai and Ratanlal, claiming that Ratanlal was the adopted son of Govardhandas and therefore could not claim any share in his natural family’s properties. They also sought partition of the joint family properties. Sundarabai denied the adoption and filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No. 395/1987) for the dissolution of the partnership and a declaration that Ratanlal was not the adopted son of Govardhandas. Sundarabai passed away during the pendency of the suit, and her daughters were brought on record.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court partly decreed the suit, declaring Sundarabai had a 1/5th share in the partnership and ordered a preliminary decree for taking accounts. However, it rejected the claim that Ratanlal was not the adopted son of Govardhandas, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove he was not adopted. The trial court reasoned that the continuation of Ratanlal’s biological father’s name was inconsequential, some letters and invitations addressed him with his adoptive father’s name, a priest testified in favor of the adoption, and photographs seemed to support the adoption.

The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (First Appeal No. 1662/96). The High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s judgment. The High Court held that Ratanlal was not the adopted son of Govardhandas, citing suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged adoption, such as the non-production of photograph negatives, the lack of ceremony in the photographs, the timing of the adoption one day before Asha’s marriage, the lack of corroborating evidence for the priest’s testimony, contradictions in the testimony, and Ratanlal’s continued use of his earlier name.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, specifically:

• Section 3(a): Defines “custom” and “usage” as rules continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, having the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group, or family, provided the rule is certain, not unreasonable, and not opposed to public policy. It also states that in the case of a family rule, it has not been discontinued by the family.
• Section 10: Specifies conditions for adoption, including that a person cannot be adopted if married unless a custom or usage permits it. It also states that a person cannot be adopted if they are over 15 years of age unless a custom or usage permits it.

The Court emphasized that while the law respects diverse customs, these customs must be proven with clear evidence and cannot be based on assumptions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The custom of adopting married men is prevalent in the Jain community, which was proven by the priest who performed the adoption ceremony.
• The custom of adoption of married men has been judicially recognized in several cases.
• The appellant was validly adopted in accordance with accepted customs.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The appellant did not plead any custom in the Jain community that allows the adoption of married men.
• Adoption should be accepted only when established with cogent and consistent proof, as it alters succession.
• The appellant retained his earlier name and acquired properties under that name.

Innovativeness of the arguments: The appellant’s argument was innovative in that it sought to rely on judicial recognition of a custom rather than providing fresh evidence. The respondent’s argument was innovative in that it highlighted the lack of pleading of the custom in the written statement and the need for cogent proof.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the person who alleges the existence of a custom need not prove the same because it is judicially accepted?
2. Whether the appellant could plead and prove the factum of adoption?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Thakur Gokal Chand v. Pravin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231:* The Court used this case to define the ingredients of a valid custom, emphasizing the need for long-standing and invariable practice.
• The Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sathupathi, 12 MIA 397 (1868):* The Court cited this case to highlight that clear proof of usage outweighs written law.
• Rup Chand v. Jambu Prasad, (1910) ILR 32 247:* The Court referred to this case to note that the evidence was insufficient to establish a wide custom of adoption without age or marriage restrictions among Jains.
• Sheokuarbai v. Jeoraj, AIR 1921 PC 77:* The Court distinguished this case, as the facts in the present case were different.
• Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504:* The Court used this case to emphasize the heavy burden of proving adoption and the need for evidence to be free from suspicion.
• Rahasa Pandiani (dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. Gokulananda Panda and others, AIR 1987 SC 962:* The Court relied on this case to highlight the need for caution when relying on oral evidence for adoption and that the burden to dispel suspicion lies on the person claiming to have been adopted.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged adoption and the custom of adopting married men in the Jain community. The court emphasized that customs must be proven with clear and unambiguous evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the custom. The Court also noted the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged adoption.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, but rejected them due to the lack of cogent proof and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged adoption. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving adoption is heavy, and the evidence must be free from suspicion.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, concluding that the appellant had failed to prove the adoption. The Court found that the appellant had not pleaded the existence of any custom in his written statement and failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the factum of adoption. The Court also highlighted the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged adoption.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The appellant failed to prove the existence of a custom in the Jain community that allows the adoption of married men.
• The appellant failed to plead the existence of any such custom in his written statement.
• The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the factum of adoption.
• The testimonies of witnesses were contradictory and inconsistent on material aspects of adoption.
• The circumstances surrounding the alleged adoption were suspicious.
• The appellant continued to use his earlier name after the alleged adoption.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment of the Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504:

“As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth.”

The Supreme Court also quoted the following from the judgment of Rahasa Pandiani (dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. Gokulananda Panda and others, AIR 1987 SC 962:

“When the Plaintiff relies on oral evidence in support of the claim that he was adopted by the adoptive father in accordance with the Hindu rites, and it is not supported by any registered document to establish that such an adoption had really and as a matter of fact taken place, the Court has to act with a great deal of caution and circumspection. Be it realized that setting up a spurious adoption is not less frequent than concocting a spurious will, and equally, if not more difficult to unmask. And the Court has to be extremely alert and vigilant to guard against being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practices out of their lust for property.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the evaluation of evidence, the interpretation of legal provisions, and the application of legal precedents. The Court’s application of the law to the specific facts of the case led to the conclusion that the adoption was not proven.

The decision has implications for future cases involving adoption, particularly in communities where customs may vary from general Hindu law. It emphasizes the need for clear and cogent evidence to prove the existence of a custom and the factum of adoption.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court reiterated existing principles related to the burden of proof in cases of adoption and the need for clear evidence to establish a custom.

The Court analyzed arguments for and against the adoption, ultimately rejecting the appellant’s arguments due to insufficient evidence and suspicious circumstances.

Key Takeaways

• Customs must be proven with clear and unambiguous evidence; they cannot be assumed or based on logical deductions.
• The burden of proving adoption is heavy, and the evidence must be free from suspicion.
• Oral evidence of adoption must be carefully scrutinized, especially when not supported by documentary evidence.
• Parties to a suit are always governed by their pleadings, and any amount of evidence adduced without proper pleading is of no consequence.
• This case highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures and providing sufficient evidence when claiming adoption, especially in cases where customs may vary from general law.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the custom of adopting married men in the Jain community must be proven with clear and unambiguous evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the custom. There is no change in the previous position of law as the court has reiterated the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision that Ratanlal was not the adopted son of Govardhandas. The Court emphasized that customs must be proven with clear and unambiguous evidence, and the burden of proving adoption lies with the party asserting it. The Court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the alleged adoption and the custom of adopting married men in the Jain community.