Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8814 OF  2010

M. Vanaja     .... Appellant(s)

Versus   

M. Sarla Devi (Dead)        …. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The Appellant filed a civil suit for a declaration that

she is the adopted daughter of the Respondent and Late

Narasimhulu Naidu.  She sought for partition of the suit

schedule  property.   The  suit  was  dismissed  and  the

judgment of the trial court was upheld by the High Court

of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  Hyderabad.   Aggrieved  by  the

judgment, the Appellant has filed the above Appeal.

2.   O.S. No. 190 of 2004 was filed by the Appellant in

the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.  It was averred in the

plaint that both the natural parents and the Appellant

[1]

died when she was very young.  Her mother is the sister

of  the  original  Respondent–  M.  Sarla  Devi  (died)-

Respondent herein.  Appellant pleaded in the suit that

she was brought up as the daughter of the Respondent–

M. Sarla Devi and her husband Late Narasimhulu Naidu.

In the records of School and College, the names of the

original Respondent and her husband were entered as

the parents of the Appellant.  Even in the government

records  like  ration  card,  etc.,  the  Appellant  was

mentioned as the daughter of the original Respondent

and her husband.

3. Narasimhulu Naidu worked as a Lift Operator in the

Andhra  Pradesh  State  Electricity  Board  (APSEB)  and

retired  on  30.06.1999.   In  his  service  record,  the

Appellant is referred to as his daughter.  The Appellant

has been nominated in the application for  pension of

Narasimhulu Naidu.  It was the case of the Appellant in

the  plaint  that  her  adoptive  parents  initially  did  not

approve the marriage of the Appellant with the person

of her choice, but later arranged a grand reception at

[2]

Hotel  Swagat,  Ameerpet,  Hyderabad.   Narasimhulu

Naidu was the absolute owner of a building situated at

Srinivas  Nagar  East,  Gayatri  Nagar,  Ameerpet,

Hyderabad.  He also purchased certain other properties.

Narasimhulu  Naidu  supplied  textile  materials  and

clothes  to  the  employees  of  the  APSEB  and  the

Appellant was looking after the business.  Narasimhulu

Naidu died intestate on 19.08.2003.   According to the

Appellant, she along with the Respondent succeeded to

the entire estate of Narasimhulu Naidu and that she is

entitled to half share of his properties.  It was submitted

that  due  to  the  ill-advice  of  relatives,  the  original

Defendant- M. Sarla Devi turned against the Appellant

and was making an attempt to alienate the properties.

As the negotiation for an amicable settlement failed, the

Appellant was constrained to file a suit for a declaration

that  she  is  the  adopted  daughter  of  the  original

Respondent and Narasimhulu Naidu, and for partition of

the properties belonging to Narasimhulu Naidu.

[3]

4. The original Respondent filed a written statement

in which it was stated that the Appellant is the daughter

of  her  younger  sister  Manjula.   As  the  Appellant’s

biological parents died when she was very young, the

Respondent  and  her  husband  Narasimhulu  Naidu

brought  her  up.   They  ensured  that  she  had  good

education but the Appellant was never adopted by the

Respondent  and  her  husband.   As  such,  it  was

contended by the Respondent that the Appellant does

not have any right in the properties belonging to the

Defendant’s husband.  

5. By  a  judgment  dated  15.09.2006,  the  City  Civil

Court dismissed the suit.  The principal issues that were

framed by the City Civil  Court relating to the relief of

declaration  that  the  Appellant  is  the  daughter  of  the

Respondent and deceased Narasimhulu Naidu and her

right for partition of the suit scheduled properties were

answered  in  favour  of  the  Defendant.   Relying  upon

Sections 7 and 11 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance

Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1956’),

[4]

the trial court held that the Appellant could not prove

the ceremony of adoption.  The High Court dismissed

the Appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court.

The High Court re-appreciated the evidence on record

and held that except the statement of the Appellant that

she  was  adopted  by  the  Respondent  and  (Late)

Narasimhulu Naidu, there is no other evidence to show

that the actual adoption took place in accordance with

the  procedure  prescribed  in  the  Act  of  1956.   The

evidence that was adduced on behalf of the Appellant

was brushed aside by the High Court which held that

the  Appellant  cannot  succeed  unless  she  proves  the

adoption took place in accordance with the provisions of

the Act of 1956.

6. We have  heard  Mr.  Kedar  Nath  Tripathy,  learned

counsel  appearing  for  the  Appellant  and  Mr.  T.V.

Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

The  learned  counsel  for  the  Appellant  strenuously

submitted that there is overwhelming evidence brought

on record to show that the Appellant was treated as the

[5]

daughter  of  Narasimhulu  Naidu  and  the  Respondent

husband for all practical purposes.  He relied upon the

School and College records apart from service record of

Narasimhulu  Naidu  in  support  of  his  submission.   He

stated that it is not possible for the Appellant to prove

the manner in which the adoption took place as she was

very young at that time.  He relied upon the judgment

of this Court in L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. v. Smt.

Tribeni Devi & Ors.1  to  argue that  the subsequent

events  can  be  taken  into  account  for  the  purpose  of

proving adoption.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent urged that the

mandatory  requirement  of  proving  the  factum  of

adoption  under Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956

has  not  been  complied  with  by  the  Appellant.   He

argued that there is no pleading in the plaint regarding

the particulars  regarding  the ceremony of  giving  and

taking over.  Any amount of evidence without the actual

adoption  being  proved  cannot  assist  the  Appellant  in

1 (1970) 1 SCC 677

[6]

getting relief.  He also relied upon the evidence of the

grand-mother (PW-3) of the Appellant i.e. mother of the

Respondent,  who  also  supported  the  case  of  the

Respondent  and  deposed  in  Court  that  the  Appellant

was never adopted.  

8. The  undisputed  facts  of  this  case  are  that  the

Appellant  is  the  daughter  of  the  original  Defendant’s

sister.  The parents of the Appellant died when she was

very young.  As the Appellant was very young, she was

brought  by  her  grand-mother  and  given  to  the

Respondent and her husband to be taken care of.  The

Appellant was brought up by the Respondent and her

husband, Narasimhulu Naidu.  The School and College

records and other documents that were filed in Court by

the Appellant would show that the Respondent and her

husband were shown as the parents of the Appellant.

Eventually,  the  Appellant  married  and  started  living

separately.  After the death of Narasimhulu Naidu, the

Respondent was residing in the suit schedule property

and was in enjoyment of the properties of Narasimhulu

[7]

Naidu.  The request made by the Appellant for partition

of the properties was turned down by the Respondent

leading to the filing of the Civil Suit.

9. The only points that arises for our consideration are

whether  the Appellant  has proved that  she has  been

adopted by the Respondent and Respondent’s husband,

whether she is entitled to a declaration that she is the

daughter  of  the  Respondent  and  Narasimhulu  Naidu,

and whether the Appellant is entitled to partition of the

properties belonging to Narasimhulu Naidu.   

10. Section 6 of  the Act of  1956, prescribes the pre-

requisites for a valid adoption, which are :-

“6 Requisites  of  a  valid  adoption  –  No

adoption shall be valid unless –

(i) the person adopting has the capacity,

and also the right, to take in adoption,

(ii) the  person  giving  in  adoption  has  the

capacity to do so;

[8]

(iii) the  person  adopted  is  capable  of  being

taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with

the other  conditions  mentioned  in  this

Chapter”

11. Section 7 provides that the male Hindu who is of

sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take

a son or a daughter in adoption.  The consent of his wife

has been made mandatory by the proviso to Section 7.

Section 9 deals with persons who are capable of giving

a child  in  adoption.   The other  conditions  for  a  valid

adoption are stipulated in Section 11 of the Act of 1956.

One such condition is 11 (6) which is as under:-

“11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.

xx

(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  his  birth  (or  in  the case  of  an

abandoned child or child whose parentage is

[9]

not known, from the place or family where it

has  been  brought  up)  to  the  family  of  its

adoption:

Provided that the performance of data homam

shall  not  be  essential  to  the  validity  of

adoption”

12. A plain reading of the above provisions would make

it clear that compliance of the conditions in Chapter I of

the  Act  of  1956  is  mandatory  for  an  adoption  to  be

treated  as  valid.   The  two  important  conditions  as

mentioned in Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956 are

the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a

child and proof  of  the ceremony of  actual  giving and

taking  in  adoption.   The  Appellant  admitted  in  her

evidence  that  she  does  not  have  the  proof  of  the

ceremony  of  giving  and  taking  of  her  in  adoption.

Admittedly, there is no pleading in the plaint regarding

the adoption being in accordance with the provisions of

the Act.  That apart, the Respondent who is the adoptive

[10]

mother has categorically stated in her evidence that the

Appellant  was never  adopted though she was merely

brought up by her and her husband.  Even the grand-

mother of the Appellant who appeared before the Court

as  PW-3  deposed  that  the  Appellant  who  lost  her

parents in her childhood was given to the Respondent

and her husband to be brought up.  PW 3 also stated in

her evidence that the Appellant was not adopted by the

Respondent and her husband.  Therefore, the Appellant

had failed to prove that she has been adopted by the

Respondent and her husband  Narasimhulu Naidu.

13. The Appellant relied upon a judgment of this Court

in         L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs.(supra) to

submit that abundant evidence submitted by her before

Court would point to the fact that she was brought up as

the daughter of the Respondent and her husband (Late)

Narasimhulu Naidu.  Such evidence can be taken into

account  to  draw  inference  that  she  was  adopted  by

them.  The facts in  L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs.

(supra) case are similar to those in the instant case.  In

[11]

that case, Shyam Behari Lal was adopted by Gopal Das

in the year 1892 when he was an infant.  Shyam Behari

Lal was unable to establish the actual adoption but has

produced considerable documentary evidence to show

that  he  was  treated  as  the  son  of  Gopal  Das  for  a

quarter of century.  This Court accepted the submission

of Shyam Behari Lal and held that there was sufficient

evidence on record to infer a valid adoption.  Though

the facts are similar, we are unable to apply the law laid

down in L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. (supra) to the

instant case.  L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. (supra)

case pertains to adoption that took place in the year

1892 and we are concerned with an adoption that has

taken place after the Act of 1956 has come into force.

Though the Appellant has produced evidence to show

that  she  was  treated  as  a  daughter  by  (Late)

Narasimhulu  Naidu  and  the  Defendant,  she  has  not

been able to establish her adoption.  The mandate of

the Act of 1956 is that no adoption shall be valid unless

it  has  been  made  in  compliance  with  the  conditions

[12]

mentioned in Chapter  I  of  the Act  of  1956.   The two

essential conditions i.e. the consent of the wife and the

actual ceremony of adoption have not been established.

This  Court  by  its  judgment  in  Ghisalal v.  Dhapubai

(Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.2 held that the consent of the

wife is mandatory for proving adoption.

14. In  view  of  the  aforementioned  facts  and

circumstances, we find no error in the judgment of the

High Court.  Therefore, the Appeal is dismissed.  

                 ……...............................J.

                                         [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                        …....……..........................J.

                       [DEEPAK GUPTA]

New Delhi, March 06, 2020.

2 (2011) 2 SCC 298

[13]