Case: M. VANAJA Vs. M. SARLA DEVI (DEAD)

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 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 husband3. 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 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 Naidu4. 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 Appellants 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 Defendants husband5. 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), 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.

Reasoning: 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 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 NaiduSuch 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 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 [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. (2011) 2 SCC 298   held that the consent of the wife is mandatory for proving adoption.