Merely Because Adoption Deed Is Registered Document, It Can’t Be Accepted As Having Presumptive Value U/S 16 HAMA: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the presumption under Section 16 HAMA is rebuttable, and the wording in the document itself may give a cause for suspicion and should be carefully examined.
The Bombay High Court held that merely because an adoption deed is a registered document, it cannot be accepted as having presumptive value under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
The Court held thus in an Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the First Appellate Court which allowed the Appeal of the Plaintiffs.
A Single Bench of Justice Gauri Godse observed, “Only because the adoption deed is a registered document it cannot be accepted as having presumptive value under Section 16. The presumption under Section 16 is applicable only if the document records the particulars of the adoption made and it is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption. 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. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the presumption under Section 16 would not assist the appellant’s arguments.”
The Bench further reiterated that the presumption under Section 16 HAMA is rebuttable, and the wording in the document itself may give a cause for suspicion and should be carefully examined.
Advocate V.S. Talkute appeared for the Appellant while Advocate Ajit Kenjale appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The parties were the heirs and legal representatives of a man namely Gopala who had two sons Ganu and Pandurang. Ganu died in 1953 while Pandurang died in 1978. The Plaintiffs were Ganu’s wife and sons and the Defendant was Pandurang’s wife. The Appellant i.e., the biological son of Ganu and his wife claimed that Pandurang and his wife adopted him. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Suit properties were tenanted properties originally cultivated by Gopala. The Defendants claimed that the properties were self-acquired by Pandurang as he was a tenant in respect of the properties.
The Defendant claimed that he being the adopted son of Pandurang and his wife, is exclusively entitled to the ownership of the property after the death of his wife. The Plaintiffs claimed that the properties were ancestral joint family properties and they claimed 1/4th share in the property as Pandurang and his wife died issueless. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit by holding that the properties belonged to Pandurang and Ganu’s son being the adopted son, was entitled to the properties. The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s findings and disbelieved the claim of the Defendant being the adopted son of Pandurang and his wife. Hence, the case was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “I have already recorded findings on the contents of the adoption deed. There are discrepancies in the pleadings and the contents of the adoption deed. The contents of the adoption deed create serious doubt on the adoption theory. In view of the contents of the documents, it appears that according to the defendants, adoption had taken place sometime in 1960, i.e. after Ganu’s death. Hence, it cannot be believed that Ganu had consented to the adoption. The consent by plaintiff no. 3, i.e. the biological mother, is not even pleaded.”
The Court said that Section 9 of HAMA provides that the biological father or mother can give the child in adoption with the consent of the other and that the adoption deed does not record the give and take of the child in adoption.
“The document is admittedly not signed by plaintiff no.3. Hence, the legal principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding rebuttal of the presumption are squarely applicable in the present case”, it added.
The Court held that the Suit properties cannot be accepted as ancestral joint family properties.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal and modified the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Nivritti Pandurang Nale v. Uttam Ganu Nale & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:16241)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate V.S. Talkute
Respondents: Advocates Ajit Kenjale, Suraj Bansode, Sohil Gulabani, and Kaustubh Kandpile.
