LAKSHMAN SINGH KOTHARI Vs. RUP KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer dated 27/10/1953, confirming the judgment of the District Judge, Ajmer, and setting aside that of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 48 of 1944.

(3.) STRONG reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Biradhmal v. Prabhabhati (3). There a widow executed a deed of adoption whereby she purported to have adopted as son to her deceased husband a boy. The Sub-Registrar before whom the document was registered put to the boy's natural father and to the widow questions whether they had executed the deed. The boy was also present at that time. The Judicial Committee held that, under the said circumstances, there was proof of giving and taking. The question posed by the Privy council was stated thus: 'The sole issue discussed before their Lordships was the question of fact whether on 30/06/1924, at about 6 p.m. when the adoption deed wag being registered the boy was present and was given by Bhanwarmal and taken by the widow'. The question so posed was answered thus at p. 155: '......... their Lordships think that the evidence that the boy was present at the time when the sub-registrar put to his father and to the widow the questions whether they had executed the deed is sufficient to prove a giving and taking.' This sentence is rather laconic and may lend support to the argument that mere putting questions by the Sub-Registrar would amount to giving and taking of the adoptive boy; but the subsequent discussion makes it clear that the Privy council had not laid down any such wide proposition. Their Lordships proceeded to observe: 'Even if the suggestion be accepted that the auspicious day ended at noon on the 30th and that the deed was executed before noon and before the boy arrived at Ajmer, it seems quite probable that the registration proceedings which were arranged for 6 p.m. would be regarded as a suitable occasion for carrying out the very simple ceremony that was necessary.' These observations indicate that on the material placed before the Privy council-it is not necessary to say that we would come to the same conclusion on the same material-it hold that there was giving and taking of the boy at about 6 p.m. when the document was given for registration. The Judicial Committee, in our view, did not intend to depart from the well recognized doctrine of Hindu Law that there should be a ceremony of giving and taking to validate an adoption.