JAI SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESH C. Banerjee, J. The matter under consideration pertains to the effect of statutory presumption as envisaged under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. For convenience sake, it would be worthwhile to note the provision for its true purport. Section 16 reads as below: "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. "

(2.) THE section thus envisages a statutory presumption that in the event of there being a registered document pertaining to adoption there would be a presumption that adoption has been made in accordance with law. Mandate of the statute is rather definite since the Legislature has used "shall" instead of any other word of lesser significance. Incidentally, however the inclusion of the words "unless and until it is disproved" appearing at the end of the statutory provision has made the situation not that rigid but flexible enough to depend upon the evidence available on record in support of adoption. It is a matter of grave significance by reason of the factum of adoption and displacement of the person adopted from the natural succession thus onus of proof is rather heavy. Statute has allowed some amount of flexibility, lest it turns out to be solely dependent on a registered adoption deed. THE reason for inclusion of the words "unless and until it is disproved" shall have to be ascertained in its proper perspective and as such the presumption cannot but be said to be a rebuttable presumption. Statutory intent thus stands out to be rather expressive depicting therein that the presumption cannot be an irrebuttable presumption by reason of the inclusion of the words just noticed above. On the wake of the aforesaid observations of the learned single Judge in Modan Singh v. Mst. Sham Kaur & Ors. , AIR 1973 P&h 122, stands confirmed and we record our concurrence therewith.

(3.) RECORD depicts that the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for declaration that she was the owner in possession of the suit land and that the decree dated August 1, 1986 passed in civil suit instituted on July 23, 1986 and registered Will dated February 14, 1974 alleged to have been executed by her father together with the adoption deed dated June 1, 1973 recording that Jai Singh had been adopted by Sunda Ram were illegal and result of misrepresentation of facts and thus not binding on her. The trial Court decreed the suit. Appeal therefrom filed by the defendant/appellant was dismissed and even the second appeal also stands dismissed.