GHISALAL versus DHAPUBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

[201) 1 S.C.R. 651

GHISALAL v.

DHAPUBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.6373-6374 of 2002)

JANUARY 12, 2011

[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956:

s. 7, proviso - Consent of wife is condition precedent .

-for adoption by male Hindu Consent should either be in writing or reflected by an affirmative/positive act voluntarily and willingly done by her- Presence of wife as spectator in the assembly of people who gather at the place where the ceremonies of adoption are performed cannot be treated as . 0 her consent- Wife's silence or lack of protest on her part also would not give rise to an inference that she had consented to the adoption - In .the instant case, Ghisalal claimed right in properties of Gopalji on the ground that Gopalji had adopted him with the consent of his wife Dhapubai - All the courts below held that the consent of Dhapubai could be presumed -because she was present in the ceremonies of adoption High Court went step further and observed that failure of Dhaplibai to challenge the adoption deed was strong circumstance to show that she had consented to the adoption -of Ghisalal by her husband Courts below completely ignored that presence of Dhapubai in the ceremonies of adoption was · -only as mute spectator and not as an active participant Neither Ghisalal nor any of the witnesses examined by him stated that before taking Ghisalal in adoption, Gopalji had consulted Dhapubai or taken her in confidence and that the - latter had given her consent or agreed to the adoption or that she had taken prominent part in the adoption ceremonies -All of them made parrot like statement that Dhapubai was

-A sitting with other women below the chabutra No evidence was produced by Ghisalal to prove that Dhapubai was signatory to the adoption deed or was present at the time of -its execution and/or registration Therefore, the contents of adoption deed could not be made basis for assuming that [Dhapubai ][was ][a ][party ][to the ][adoption ][-]Testimony of Kishanlal, the natural father of Ghisalal was most crucial and -yet he was not examined The concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that Gopalji had adopted Ghisalal with the consent of Dhapubai was perverse inasmuch as the same was [based on unfounded assumptions and pure conjectures ][-]Dhapubai had succeeded in proving that the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji was not valid - . Therefore, the suit filed by Ghisalal for partition of properties belonging to Gopalji was not maintainable. ·

s. 7, proviso - Interpretation of the term 'consent' used in -the proviso Held: The term 'consent used in the proviso to s. 7 and the explanation appended thereto has not been -defined in the Act Therefore, while interpreting the provision, the court has to keep in view the legal position obtaining before enactment of the 1956 Act, the object of the new legislation and apply the rule of purposive interpretation and if that is done, it would be reasonable to say that the consent of wife envisaged in the proviso to s. 7 should either be in writing or reflected by an affirmative/positive act voluntarily and willingly --F done by her Interpretation of statutes Purposive interpretation.

-Hindu law: Old. and present law relating to adoption -Comparison between Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,

[1956. ]

The case of the appellant was that one Gopalji had taken him in adoption at the age of 5~6 years in 1959. He gave description of the adoption ceremonies by stating

GHISALAL v. DHAPUBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 653

that his natural father, Kishanlal had made him to sit in the lap of Gopalji and the latter accepted him as the adopted son. The deed of adoption was executed and got registered on 25.6.1964. Dhapubai, the wife of Gopalji had consented to the adoption.

The appellant filed suit for partition with prayer that he should be given one half share in the properties belonging to Gopalji. In the said suit, he challenged gift deed dated 22.10.1966 executed by Gopalji in favour of Dhapubai and sale deed dated 19.1.1973 executed by the latter in favour of one Sunderbai in respect of one parcel of land. Later on, an amendment was also made in the plaint that gift deed dated 29.11.1944 was invalid, inoperative and ineffective and did not affect his right to get share in the ancestral properties. He alleged that the gift deeds were obtained by fraud. In her written statement, Dhapubai not only disputed the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopaiji, but categorically averred that she had not consented to the adoption. She also questioned the locus stahdi of Ghisalal to challenge the gift deeds.

The trial court held that the suit properties were ancestral properties of Gopalji and the appellant was validly adopted son of Gopalji and the consent of Dhapubai could be presumed from her presence in the .. adoption ceremonies; and the gift deeds and Will were not valid. The first appellate court upheld the order of the trial court. The High Court confirmed the findings recorded by the two courts on the legality of Ghisalal's adoption by Gopalji and that Ghisalal was not entitled to challenge the gift deed dated 29.11.1944 but held that Will Dated 27 .10.1975 could not be treated to have been validly executed by Gopalji. Ghisalal and Dhapubai filed instant appeals before this Court.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Section 6 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 lays down that no adoption shall be valid unless the person adopting has the capacity as also .the right to take in adoption; the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; the person adopted is capable of being taken .in adoption, and the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in Chapter II. Section 7 lays down that any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not minor has the capacity to take son or daughter in adoption. This is subject to the rider enshrined in the proviso which lays down that if the male Hindu has wife living then he s'l)all not adopt except with the consent of his wife unless slle is incapacitated to give the consent by reason of her having completely and finally renounced the world or hel'I 0 [having ceased to be Hindu ][or ][she has been declared ]by court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. The explanation appended to Section 7 lays down that if person- has more than one wife living at the time of adoption, then the consent of all the wives is sine qua non for valid adoption unless either of them suffers f!'lom any of the disabilities specified in the proviso to Section 7. Section 12 deals with effects of adoption. It declares that from the date of the adoption, an adopted child is deemed to be child of his/her adoptive father or mother · for all purposes and his ties in the family of his or her birth shall stand severed and replaced by those created in the adoptive family. Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 12 saves the vested right of the adopted child in the property subject to the obligations, if any, attached to the ownership· of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth. Likewise, clause (c) to the proviso lays down that the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate vested in him or her before the date of adoption~ Section . 16 which embodies rule of presumption lays down that

whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force evidencing adoption and signed by · the person giving and person taking the child in adoption is produced before any court, then it shall presume that the adoption has been made after complying with the provisions of the Act unless proved otherwis.e. [Para 17) [673-C-H; 674-A·C)

2.1. In Indian society, male spouse enjoyed the position of dominance for centuries together. This was particularly so in Hindu families. Under the old Hindu Law, Hindu male had an absolute right to adopt male. child and. his wife did not have the locus to question his right or to object to the adoption. wife could adopt son to her husband but she could not do so during her husband's lifetime without his express consent. After his death, she could adopt son to him, in certain parts of India, only if he had expressly authorized her to do so. In other parts of India, she could adopt without such authority. However, in no case wife or widow could adopt son to herself. An adoption by woman married or unmarried of son to herself was invalid and conferred no legal rights upon the adopted person. daugMer could not be adopted by male or female Hindu. The physical act of giving was prime necessity of the ceremonial requirements relating to adoption. As . to datta homam, that is, oblations of clarified butter to fire, the law was not finally settled and there was divergence of judicial opinion. After India became sovereign, democratic republic, this position has underwent sea change. The old Hindu Law was codified to large extent on the basis of constitutional principles of equality. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 codifies the law on the subject of marriage and divorce. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ,codifies the law relating to intestate succession. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 codifies the law relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus.

The 1956 Act is also part of the scheme of codification of laws. Once the Hindu Succession Act was passed giving equal treatment to the sons and daughters in the matter of succession, it was only logical that the fundamental guarantee of equality of status and equality before law is recognized in the matter of adoption. The 1956 Act now provides for adoption of boys as well as girls. By virtue of the proviso to Section 7, the consent of wife has been made condition precedent for adoption by male Hindu. The mandatory requirement of the wife's consent enables her to participate in the decision making process which vitally affects the family. If the wife · finds that the choice of the person to be adopted by the husband is not appropriate or is not in the interest of the family then she can veto his discretion. female Hindu 0 [who ][is ][of ][a sound mind and has completed the age ][of ]eighteen years can also take son or daughter in adoption to herself and in her own right. female Hindu who is unmarried or widow or divorcee can also adopt son to herself, in her own right, provided she has no Hindu daughter or son's daughter living at the time of adoption [Sections 8, 11 (1) and 11 (2)). However, if she is married, female Hindu cannot adopt son or daughter during the lifetime of her husband unless the husband is of unsound mind or has renounced the world .. By incorporating the requirement of wife's consent in the proviso to Section 7 and by conferring independent right upon female Hindu to adopt child, Parliament has tried to .achieve one of the facets of the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble and reflected in Article 14 read with Article 15 of the Constitution. [Paras 18, 19] [674-D·· H; 675-A-G]

2.2. The term 'consent' used in the proviso to Section

7 and the explanation appended thereto has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, while interpreting these provisions, the court shall have to keep in view the legal

r'".; • r._ t. . , i - L - .JI 1 i , . . 1 •. ~ • :_• , •• I . ~ r- • : ;·.~ ! GHISALAL v. DHAPUBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 657

position ~'~ I ! : l.'f 1 obtam1~g • ' ~ · • ~efore II . ' enac~men~ , .. of I ~~~ " '; .19~~ l -• Aft., f'"' • tl],e . ~' 1 object of the hew legislation arid apply the rule of purposive interpretation and if that is done, it woulCJ be reasonable to say that the consent of wife envisaged in the proviso :.,.., . . · t() · Section 7 should either · -··. 1;"'. ·u~ ··r , •, ,. · be .._,.,..., .• in ,,. writing -.r .'' . or '·1 r. refl~cted -~y -~n, affJrm~tive/p~si~ive act ,yolunt~rily a~d 8 willingly done by her •. If the adoption by Hindu male becor1es ' ~ subJ~f,~ • • •... ~?~~~r j r '!f. J ' ch~!~~,n~~, . . : b~fore ,_.. ~he ~ourt; I _the party supporting the adoption· has to adduce evidence to prove ,that. the same .was done with the consent ,of ti is' wife. t~is l ~~ii ~e ~one either, by producing doc~ijle~t l!Videhc!ilg h~r consent iri _writing or by leading. evidence to sHow that wife had actively affirmative participated t' • mmdsetto ~ iri ~···"·,·'.-tile ··.~_;; cereiTionie~ support the action -1 il'fo' J" ~·I 8i ·:1-:I~] adoption of ,._j, the husband • ' .witti "L" an 11.,,_ to take son or daughter in adoption: The presence of wife as spectatoHii the assembly of people who gather at the -~ place. whefe -ii.•.· . ' Hie -- ; ceremonies ~. ~ ~ ' ' t.1 of . adoptiOri are i:-,,... J • J -words, the performed cannot be treated as her consent. In otHer · .'·-~1·f~ Cou11_c~nnot .. r1·-pre!"ume the ,_.,. J.,~.~, _con~ent .f".-: ,, of -wife .~ ... simply, because she .~as _pre~ent at the ,thtie of adoptio"!. !h~. wife';; silence or .la~_k of protest.pn her P.art also cannot give rise to an inference ttiat she tlad consented -fo the adoption: [Pata 20] [675-H; G7£~:A-E]

. . -! 1 -- -' .

. - . . . --- -. --3.1. This Court is extremely loath to interfere with the

coilc-urrent finding of fact recorded by the _courts beiow inore particularly when such finding has been approved by the High Court. In such matter~; !~terf.erence is warranted only When this Court is convi~~ed t~at the finding is ex lacie p~rverse. find!ng .of fact can be treated as perverse if it is based on no evidence or there is to~al misreading of pleadings and/or evidence of the p-arties or - the findlng is based on unfounded assumptions or conjectures. [Para 23] [680-A-B]

3.2. In support of his claim that he had been adopted

by Gopalji, Ghisalal appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. He produced . copy of the deed of adoption {Exhibit P-1), the plaint (Exhibit P-21) of Suit No.76A of 1964 filed by one Pannalal in which he and Gopalji were impleaded as defendant Nos.1 and 2 and copies of the written statements (Exhibits P-2 and P-3) filed in that suit. He also examined witnesses to prove these documents. In the cross-examination, Ghisalal disclosed that his father Kishanlal had got him admittect in the school and in the school records, the name of his natural father Kishanlal was entered. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the time of registration; Gopalji, his father Kishanlal and Dhapubai had come along with him but he did not know 0 [whether ][Dhapubai had signed on the registry. ][He ][also ]stated that there was no talk of obtaining signature of Dhapubai in his presence but volunteered to say that she was agreeable. The other three witnesses also spoke about the ceremonies of adoption. According to them, Dhapubai was sitting below the platform {chabutra). In her statement, Dhapubai categorically stated that Gopalji had not obtained her consent for the adoption of Ghisalal and that sh~ had not gone to tehsil for the purpose of registry. Dhabubai also stated that she did not know whether Gopalji had gone to tehsil and got the registry of adoption deed. She expressed ignorance about the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji. She then stated that she did not want to take anyone in adoption. She also spelt reasons for some of the PWs ·deposing in favour of Ghisalal. The other witnesses examined by Dhapubai, namely, DW-2, D'JV-3, DW-4 and DW•S also expressed their ignorance · about the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji. [Paras 25, 27] [680-G-H; 681-C-G; 682-A-C]

3.3. The: trial court, the lower appellate court and the. High Court misdirected themselves in deciding the issue

relating to Dhapubai's consent to the adoption of Ghisalal

by Gopalji. AU the courts held that the consent of Dhapubai could be presumed because she was present in the ceremonies of adoption. The H.igh Court went step further and observed that failure of Dhapubai to challenge the adoption deed is strong circumstance to show that she had .consented to the adoption of Ghisalal by her husband. Unfortunately, all the courts completely ignored that presence of Dhapubai in the ceremonies of . adoption was only as mute spectator and not as an active participant. Neither Ghisalal nor any of the · witnesses examined by him stated that before taking Ghisalal in adoption, Gopalji' had consulted Dhapubai or taken her in confidence and the latter had given her consent or agreed to the adoption of Ghisalal or that she had taken prominent part in the·adoption ceremonies. All 0 of them made parrot like statement that Dhapubai was sitting with other women below the platform (chabutra). By no stretch of imagination, this could be equated with her active participation in the adoption. ceremonies so as to enable the courts to draw an inference that she had given consent for the adoption of Ghisalal. [Para 30) [684-E C-G]

3.4. Another grave error committed by all the courts

was that they had presumed the consent of Dhapubai by relying upon the ·contents of the deed of adoption (Exhibit P-1) in which Gopalji was said to have recorded that it was his and his· wife's esteemed desire to take Ghisalal in adoption. It was neither tile pleaded case of Ghisalal nor any evidence was produced by him to prove that Dhapubai was signatory to Exhibit P-1 or that she was· present at the time of execution and/or registration of Exhibit P-1. Therefore, the contents of Exhibit P-1 could not be made basis for assuming that Dhapubai was party to the adoption of Ghisalal. The so called failure of Dhapubai to challenge E~hibit P-1 cannot be

[2011) 1 S.C.R.

used against her because Ghisalal did not adduce any evidence to show that after execution of the deed of adoption, Dhapubai was made aware of the same or copy thereof was made available to her. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be assumed that Dhapubai . was aware of the execution and registration of the deed of adoption and she deliberately omitted to challenge the same. [Paras 31, 32] [684-H; 685-A-D]

4.1. While analyzing and evaluating the evidence of

the parties, the courts below failed to notice an impo,rta"!t lacuna in Ghisalal's case, that is, non examination of Kishanlal who, as per Ghisalal's .own version had not only taken active part in the ceremonies- of adoption but was also signatory to the deed of; adoption. The statements of PW-7, Advocate and his clerk PW-8 would show that the written statement in the s~it filed by Pannalal was drafted under the instructions of Kishanlal and he had signed the same as guardian of Ghisalal. This would show that Kishanlal had played the most pivotal role in the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji. Therefore, he was the best person who could support Ghisalal's plea that he was taken in adoption by Gopalji and Dhapubai had given consent for the same. No explanation was given why Kishanlal was not examined despite the fact that he was not only actively involved at various stages of the adoption but was also instrumental in Ghisalal's admission in the school and defending the case flied by Pannalal. If the statements of Ghisalal and PW-3 are read in conjunction with the fact that written statement in Suit No.76A of 196:4 Pannalal v. GhisaiaJ and another was filed by Kishanlal in February, 1966, there remains no doubt that testimony of Kishanlal was most crucial and yet tie was not examined. The trial court did take cognizance of this omission but brushed aside the same with cry,pth:: observation that no objection was raised from the sidEt of the defendants that Ghisalal was not given in ad.npt.10.n

~Y ~is ~a~!.lral f~~~~f · ThE7 !~~~r ~RPe!l!ite ~gurt an~ ~~e ~

High' Court did not· even ~advert fo"this important lacuna which would. have'' made' any 'person' of reaso'n'aille prudence to; ao'ubt the· bonafides 'o( Ghis,alal'-s' claim that tie' was a'dopted by Gopalji with the' consent ·of Dhapubai: [Para 33r£685~D!H; ~6,86-A~cr' [1 1]' • : • ·· · -)• ; :. ~ ~' ~'

; :. ~ ~' ~' 8

•• ~ .... J-1 -~·_ •. ~.,, •. '" .. ,_~ 'J

. 4.2. The concurrent finding rec9rded by the . rl. ' -l - •I . I > } -• ! • 1 trial ~; court r·~ "f and the lower·a·ppellate court, t . · ,. t-,, ' '~ . which · _ I • was approved by the ~ t . r' ~ , , :_ _ _ • :-, ., High Court that·Gopalji had adopted Ghisalal with the ••• : ! I ' I l .. -1- •• I r"":l'~, {''~ >1lLt I: .... ! 1-' . ··n r'lrl consent of Dhapuba1 was perverse inasmuch as the s~me was' based' o'n o'n urifOunded 'as~umptions' and' pure ~ d>tijectJres.' DhapubalJhiid succeeded iii' proving that' the t .. : · 1, ' .-i.··•. • 1 -.fl 1:·•..--,-Q·~""t'llP·(1 1r .!rr·:··~ - , . 1.- -r adoption . .. ~· of Ghisalal by Gopalji was , ' J ' • • . -I -y., not ··~ ..__, valid because her ,.I.I• I . . .• : proviso consent ·. ' to was Section not . ' obtained r 7 ' , of . ' the 1956. Act. Therefore, the ' ~ as per r .. the -mandate ·-· , of suit the r filed recorded ·by the ,·-ll by '-··-Ghisalal' •. -.-· trial was • ·' court, ·'not 'maintainable 'and the l<l' the· ._ l lower appellate .. ~.,_~· .• ,,._ .. coli (-findings . rt and/ ; . '-) or the High Court 'ori the 'validityr of .gift deed's· ·dated 29.11.1944 and 22~ 10~196S;Will dated·21:1'0.1975~exec'uted by Gopalji in favour of Dhapubai and sale deed dated 19.1.1973 executed by her in'favoui of Sunderbai are liable to be set aside. [Para 34] [686-C~FJ' <:>» --"'

s~me was' based' o'n o'n urifOunded 'as~umptions' and' pure ~

.a::~~ ••.. , .

.,.;, ~ "f

K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009) 1 SCC 354;

Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo'kadanf (2oo3) 2 S~p 91; Kashibai v. Pa'rwati~af (1'995) ·s s·cc 21 ~; Brajendra Singh I v. ' State • • of I J " M;P. " ~ (2008) 13 SCC 161; · • ' · • ·, ' I •i • ; Moo/chand Chhota/al v. Amritbai Manji Khoda Bhai and others (1976) MPlJ"382 - refei"red''to.·/ ',. J·•·· 4 ,,... .,_c '' -;-, .,O•t'°r:'l!J

Case Law Reference:

l. ~ ·...; G~' ;,~~LI J, ;t..,t;. (2009) Ir • .1 ~ 1 ~ sec -\.. 354 _, ..,, • referred to r•-· f:._ . I l.l.' ~·J Para14 {. 1.L" (2003) 2 , ' • . -sec ~' ' •. 1 91 j ' referred .. , .·b--~ to ·~ ... Para 14 (1995) 6 J sec - . 213 .,. : ~ referred ' ''J " ~ ~ to L ~ara « 15

~ara 15

c2008) 13 sec 161 referred to . (1976) MPLJ 382 referred to

Para 15

Para 29

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6373-6374 of 2002

From the Judgment & order dated 12.09.2000 of the High

Court of Madhya Prades at Jabalpur in Second Appeal Nos. 25 & 61 of 1978.

WITH

C. A. Nos. 6375-6376 of 2002

Puneet Jain, Pretibha Jain for the Appellant.

Nikhil Majithia, Rameshwar Prsad Goyal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether mere presence of Dhapubai

in the ceremonies performed by her husband Gopalji for adoption of Ghisalal amounted to her co.nsent as contemplated by the proviso to Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act') is the main question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against judgment dated 12.9.2000 of the learned Single- Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench whereby he partly allowed the second appeals filed by the parties and modified the decree passed by the lower appellate Court, which had substantially reversed the decree passed by the trial Court in suit for declaration, partition and possession.

2. Although, Gopalji, Dhapubai and Sunderbai who were

impleaded as defendant Nos.1to3 in Suit No.54A of 1973 filed by Ghisalal died during the pendency of litigation, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to them by their names and not by the description given in the suit and the appeals.

GHISALAL v. DHAPUBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 663 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.J

3. The pleaded case of Ghisalal was that in Baisakh of

Samvat2016 (1959) his father, Kishanlal gave him in adoption to Gopalji; that ceremonies like putting of tilak on his forehead · and distribution of sweets were performed; that registered deed of adoption was executed by Kishanlal and Gopalji on 25.6.1964; that Gopalji had inherited certain agricultural lands of villages Jeeran, Arnya Barona, Kuchrod, two storeyed house and one court-yard from his father Roopji; that after · adoption, he became coparcener in the family of Gopalji and thereby acquired right in the suit properties; that Gopalji executed three Gift Deeds dated 22.10.1966 whereby he transferred lands of villages Jeeran, Amya Barona and Kuchrod to his wife Dhapubai and the . latter sold portion of land in survey No.945 of village Kuchrod to Sunderbai vide Sale Deed dated 19.1.1973; that the gift deeds executed by Gopalji in favour of Dhapubai were fraudulent and were intended to depriv~ him of his right in the an.cestral properties and that even in his capacity as karta of the family, Gopalji could not have gifted more than 1/3rd of his share. On the basis of these pleadings, Ghisalal prayed that decree of partition be passed, and he be given one half share in the suit properties. He further prayed that Gopalji may be directed to give an account of the agricultural produce and pay him his share.

4. In the written statement filed by him, Gopalji pleaded

that he had not adopted Ghisalal ~nd no ceremony was performed; that the so called adoption deed was obtained by playing fraud and the same was not binding on him; that the suit properties were not ancestral and that he was entitled to execute gift deeds in favour of his wife. In her separate written statement, Dhapubai also denied the. factum of the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji and claimed that she had not given · consent for the same. She then pleaded that if by taking advantage of .the simplicity of Gopalji, the plaintiff obtained some writing or deed, the same is not binding on them. She further pleaded that the gift deeds were valid and Ghisalal has no right to challenge the alienation of property by her husband.

[2011) 1 S.C.R.

5. After filing of the written statement, Dhapubai sought and

was granted leave to amend the written statement whereby she pleaded that Gopalji had earlier executed registered Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 in her favour in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.2097, 2763 and 3170 (old Survey Nos.2856, 3042/2 and 3528) of village Jeeran and she was in possession of the same. As sequel to this, Ghisalal amended the plaint and pleaded that Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 was not valid because the land of village Jeeran was not capable of being gifted and, in any case, the same was not binding on him. He further pleaded that Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 was not acted upon inasmuch as the property had not been transferred in the name of Dhapubai.

on him. He further pleaded that Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 was

6. During the pendency of the suit, Gopalji executed registered Will dated 27. 10.1975 purporting to bequeath the suit properties to- his wife Dhapubai. After some time, Gopalji died.

7. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the suit properties mentioned in Para-6 of the plaint are the property of Joint Hindu Family?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is the legally adopted son of defendant No.1 and 2?

(3) Whether the Gift Deed dated 22.10.66 is illegal and void?

(4) Whether the sale deed dated 19 .1. 73 has no effect on the plaintiff? (5) Whether the court fee has been properly paid?

(6) Whether the statement made by the defendant in Suit No. 76 of 1964 is binding on the defendants as per the law of estopple?

~tl!S,.A.LA, .. L ~· D!-1,1\P,L/~~I (D!=~P> 8-Y LLB~· ~,~P R~~· ~R~ ' . " ' ' . [G.$.' SINGHVI, J.] '~ . -

(8) Relief and expenses. ,v, 1·,,_.1•',_ 1 u11u _.,....fJ~I ·-.e····

8. After considering the pleadings and evidence produGed

by the parties: the tri~l'Courfheid'as"'uhder:· '"--"' "' ,; ur "'-t:u

~ • ._· ._1 .:J LI it:: ...... 1 ....... vu~ 1 •• ch • ..! _ !). U! 1 , -

(1) The suit properties were ancestral properties of I Gopatji. - •• -1 ' '. ,.:-. --.!;. t; " '' .. -- d' ,.,, -_.,__··. '.•l j u' 'J ' (2)

(3) _..,,

(4) Will of'bila'pub~i dated 27.10.1975 executed by Gopalji WaS1 invalid. '-'" 1 < y - ' < I' in II favour l.!VUI..• t l . l ... '' • ' ! I l ""'"'!n~1~1 (5) Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 executed by Gopalji . I I ~--·'l, ·-· I I , ... ,,.Lt t--<:Y"-"I'' ·:.--..! u ':il -· in '" favour • of Dhapubai was not valid inasmuch as I~· ·I,.. ~. ' ·3 : ''.'· v·_ [1]''1j It .1 .• ~J i 1-1l,.t • rt!:"-there was no acceptance by the donee anC1 of alienation his wife was not for pious purpose.' I' , 1 .. 1-, of u~ ·-ancest~alproperty . .i.....~ • 11,_,~ Ip "'..ii L , 1 'J'..i.4 • by'Gopalfi ln'favour 'j ·Jl..ff"'V.;,)t"' ';f,J,_l ·f t Ill '.;.;t'.l()'J;

9. Dhapubai challenged the judgment and decree of the

trial Court by tilih1g an"ap~eal under'section'96'rela& with '6rl:ler XLI Rule 1 of the Code'Of Civil Procedure.' The lower ·a'pp'eiiate Court Jag reed with 'the triai 1Cburt ithat' the suit. properfiesr-were l'J ancestral; that the adoption of Ghisalal byGopalji'was'vilid'and that the gift deeds" ·executed 'in' favour' of Dtla'pulJai were 'H6t valid·. However, 'the findings recorde·d on' tlie'fegality"of Gift • · · · · , '' ~-·~ "'•' I 1[1 ]\._"•1• ~ Deed dated 29.11.1944 and Will dated 27.10;1975. (both ' Jt:-. ~ - f. -J 1 ' ' · ~ l t. l - w ' £. I ' \ J • • • \ l( · executed by Gopalji ~R·: .. ,. -., L • 'Jf'' -··· ...• ih favour · ·, I of J' Dhapubai) were set aside" and ~' ·; 't ·r•,, "'·'•.._. tr. ''">H •. :1--"' .::11 '' I I

[2011] 1 S.C.R.

it was declared that Ghisalal is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties except the land covered by Gift Deed ,dated 29.11.1944. The lower appellate Court also. directed that whole of the land situated at village Kuchrod may be given to Ghisalal as his 1/3rd share so that there may not be any dispute between the parties in future.

10. Both, Ghisalal and Dhapubai challenged the judgment of the lower appellate Court by filing Second Appeal Nos.25 of 1978 and 61 of 1978. During the pendency of the second appeals, ·Dhapubai died and her.legal representatives were brought on record.

11. While admitting the second appeal filed by Ghisalal, the High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

(1) What would be the respective shares of the plaintiff-appellant and defendant No.1 Dhapubai in the suit properties according to law in case the Will Ex.D.2 is held to have been proved and what would be their shares in case it were to be held otherwise?

(2) Whether the execution and attestatio'1 of the Will Ex.D/2 have been proved in accordance with law?

(3) Whether there is legal evidence to prove the gift of the properties comprised in Ex.D/1 by Gopal in . favour of Dhapubai?

(4) Whether the lower Court has acted without jurisdiction or erroneously in. giving directions with respect to the apportionment of the plaintiffs share in the suit land?

12. In the second appeal filed by Dhapubai, the High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

· (1) Whether there is any legal evidence on record to prove the consent of Mother Dhapubai as required by Section 7

.GHISALAL v. DHAPUBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 667

[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

. of theHindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for the vali.d adoption of plaintiff Ghisalal?

(2) Whether the court below had jurisdiction to impose condition that Dhapubai will not get the lands situated in · village Kuchhdod?

(3) Whether the finding of the Court below that suit properties are ancestral is perverse?

13. The learned Single Judge confirmed the finding

recorded by the two Courts on the legality of Ghisalal's adoption

, ' by Gopalji. The learned Single Judge also agreed with the lower : appellate Court that Ghisalal was not entitled to challenge Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 but held that Will dated 27 .10.1975 cannot be treated to have been validly executed by Gopalji. T-he learned Single Judge further held that the lower appellate Court was not justified in issuing direction that Ghisalal be given land in village Kuchrod and Dhapubai would not get any share in that land. He finally disposed of the second appeals with the following directions:

"The appeal filed by each of the party is partly allowed. It [E ]

is directed that each of the party is entitled to half share in the agricultural lands of village Jeeran, Kuch rod and Amya Barona, barring the lands already given to Dhapubai under gift ·deed dated 29.11.1944. Each of the party i.e. Ghisalal and Dhapubai through her successors have half share in the house property situate at Village Jeeran. The property, already. sold by Dhapubai to the defendant No.3 Sundarbai shall be brought back to the hotchpot. If the . plaintiff agrees that land survey No.347 admeasuring 0.375 hectare of village Kuchrod can be given to the defendant No.3 Sundarbai then the said property can be given to her and that much of the property shall stand reduced from the share of Dhapubai, but if the plaintiff does not agree to it then survey No.947 of village Kuchrod shall be brought to the hotchpot and the property shall be partitioned in

.:..,('

I SUPREME COURT REPORTS

I [2011) 1 S:C.R.

accordance with the provisions of law. Sundabai shall be entitled to 0.375 hectares of land from the share of Dhapubai which property could be given to her may be m!Jtually settled and agreed between the successors of Dhapubai and Sundarbai. On such an agreement particular land falling in share of Dhapubai may be' given to Sundarbai but in case such an agreement cannot be arrived at then the officer competent to partition the property shall give 0.375 hectare land to Sundarbai from the share of Dhapubai, after firstly effecting the partition between Ghisalal and successors of Dhapubai. The parties shall be at litierty to make an application to the trial court to refer the matter to the Collector for effecting partition or in the alternative with the permission of the trial court the party/parties may make necessary application for partition to the Collector or the competent Officer. Regarding partition of the house ttie party/parties may make an application to the trial Court for appointment of Commissioner. The terms of the commission and the fees of the Commissioner shall be fixed by the trial court."

14. Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel for Ghisalal argued that Dhapubai's challenge to the adoption of Ghisal~I by G~palji was rightly negatived by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court and the High Court and in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court is not entitled to interfere with the [concurrent finding ][of ][fact. He pointed out that the trial Court and ]the lower appellate Court had concurrently held that Ghisalal was taken in adoption strictly in ·accordance with law and registered deed of adoption was also executed by the natural a.nd adoptive fathers and argued that the High Court rightly [declined to upset the said finding. Learned counsel emphasized ]that the consent of Dhapubai was rightly presumed by the Courts below because she was present in the ceremonies of adoption and did not question the adoption till the stage of filing written statement in the suit filed by Ghisalal. Shri Jain also [referred to the averments contained ][in ][the written statement filed ]

<3HlsAL~L v. oH.i\P.U?Ai (D~{\R> ~y u~s: AND oRs. 5g9 -[G.S. SINGHVI, J.)

~' 1[n;qi ][•• ]~' ·I'~-.. ,~ .. ·.1.1[_ ][.... ][1:v ],.,_ .. by Gopalji · (1., . ,1 in • ~ Civil Suit No.76A · -, · t ' ' = ·. of · 1964 - Parinalal ' · ~t_. ., I L v; ~--r! Ghisalal ;l. A. ,~ and another wherein •1(11 .. ,, ..... ~•·•~·-· . (-,~· ·~. he aamitted the adoption 0 1 '-~jl ;', -.~ of 1,·•~ Ghisalal ana .' ·'1'. l','I argued that the contrary assertion made in the.written statement filed below and the High.Court. Learned counsel furtlier argued tliat •I in ~f'·~· the suit t• of Ghisafal was rightly discarded oy the courts ' _ • J ,--J.1, _ L.• lJ 1~0··'' ·•i1••~ ~ , ·f _.,'.. _ ' ·.-'~ ~fte~~ ~i~. a~cjpt\o~. ¢,_His~.i~I ~~c~m.~. -~ ~~parc~nerJn 'theJ~ryi~y ?f 9.9J?~lji. a,n~:- wa~"en_ti.tle~ -~~£~~-1~.,~~a_r~e 1jnJ~e, pr_o~ert!es m~~f~t~p l?,Y 1P)s . 1~dop~X~f~~t-~~f- ~.~.9·~ ~~ :;~p~;_. me. f1,l"!d1pg r7cor~e;a. by, the;_ 19i.ye~ ~ppe.llat~S~oH~,~pd ,the ~1gh fourt .on -+ his locus to challenge Gift Deed dated 29.11: 1944, which , • ..... ,-t-. ·, --~ "" ~' -· -'1W11.·1'"'' adversely affected. his right in the suit properties unsu~tainable. 1. • ' ' Learned ' .,, _coun~el ~ • ,. •• ~~bmi~~d ·'. ·.•· th~t • ~y~n ~ tho1;1gb -is legally • po ''. r spei::ific prayer was made in.the suit tor setting aside Gift Dee9 dated 29.11.1944, the triai Court had rightly declared the same · challenged to be invalid, ineffective aria ---vahd1ty. : ~ tliereof by amending ttje plaint ana ·1~.,;,·t • inop~rative • 'IL. .. ·'~ ••• ~ bec~use 1i.! 1_[1]•'rlGhisai~i 0•.· ·uh~ i-ia~ th~ 1 ••••• 1 • parties P· Jlad f' I adduced evidence .· ,..._ ·. • .J 1··. '' kRowing -, ..... ~ 1 j fully wail ,that the legallfy ·" ( • -J · .'' , I • '· 1 '-f' of the gift deed of ~944 i~,:;ubj~<?t .!n~tter of _s9rutiny,~~Y,m~ Cou~~: _ Sliri Jain subryiitt~d -~haLi11 the .. a,n:ien.~~d .V¥i"!t~eri _ statement, Dhapubai had pleaded Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 as weapon of defence _with the sole object.of defeating the r:. right acquired by Ghisalal by virti.ie of. his adoption and; therefore, the trial Court liad righiiy !<r O ', I~ lJ" •t: ah ~·~,..·' nulled the same • ·~·-1 "·. on ~ ' t~e ' ground • of non fulfillment of tlie essentials of valid gift and.the . ·• •'J,-'-i' ('' .LJ l iJ ,A. •" <"" ---i<-lower.appellate Court and the Higli Court cqmmitted serious error by invoking Sectibn . · '."' r 12 of I the. 1956 Act and the bar 1 "' , ~ t, ... I I "f J of ~ • " limitation for the purpose of non suiting him. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court.in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayi/P,adrnini (2009) 1 sc.c. ~.54 and argued that tbe lower appellate Court seriously erred in reversing the finding and eonclusion recorded by the trial Court on the issue of validify of Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 ignoring that the burden to , -( prove the competence of Gopalji to execute ihe gift deed in respect of portion of the suit property Was on Dhapubai, which ~ht} _f~iled to discharge., Learned ~ounsel also argl!ed t~at gift of the joint family property was nullity arid the same could be . challenged ai any time. Shri Jain referred to the ]udgmeht of

this Court in Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (2003) 2 SCC 91 and submitted that the trial Court and the High Court rightly invalidated the Will executed by Gopalji in favour of Dhapubai.

15. Shri Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel for Dhapubai

8 argued that eveh though all the Courts concurrently held that Ghisalal was validly adopted by Gopalji, the finding recorded on this issue is liable to be set aside because his client had not given consent for the adoption. Learned counsel submitted that the plaint filed by Ghisalal was totally bereft of the material particulars regarding the date, time and place of adoption as also the crucial ceremony of give and take and the Courts below as well as the High Court committed serious error by recording finding that the adoption was validly made and that too by presuming the consent of Dhapubai. Learned counsel emphasized that mere presence of Dhapubai at the place where the ceremonies of adoption are said to have been performed could not be made basis for assuming that she had willingly consented to the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji. He. submitted that the consent contemplated by the proviso to Section 7 of the 1956 Act is mandatory and unless the consent of the wife is proved, the adoption cannot be treated valid. In support of this argument, Shri Majithia placed reliance on 1he judgments of this Court in Kashibai v. Parwatibai ( 1995) 6 SCC 213 and Brajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2008) 13 SCC 161. Learned counsel also assailed the High Court's finding on the legality of the Will executed by Gopalji in favour of Dhapubai and argued that examination of one attesting witness was sufficient to prove execution of the Wilt Learned counsel supported the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 and argued that even if this Court was to approve the finding recorded by the Courts below on the issue of Ghisalal's adoption, his challenge to Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 should be treated as misconceive.d and negatived because the adoption cannot relate back to any date prior to 1959.

16. We have considered the respective submissions and ·

gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel. For deciding the question whether the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji was valid, it will be useful to notice the relevant provisions of the 1956 Act. The same read as under:

"6. Requisites of valid adoption. - No adoption shall be valid unless -

7. Capacity of male Hindu to take in adoption. - Any

male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not minor has the capacity to take son or daughter in adoption:

Provided that, if he has wife living, he shall not adopt ·except with the consent of his wife unless the wife has completely and finally .renounced the world or has ceased to. be Hindu or has been declared by court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.

Explanation. - If person has more than one wife living · · at the time of adoption, the consent of all the wives is necessary unless the consent of any one of them is unnecessary for any of the reasons specified in the preceding proviso. ·

8. Capacity of female Hindu to take in adoption. -Any female Hindu -·

[2011] 1 S.C.R.

(a) who is of sound mind,

(b) who is not minor, and

(c) who is not married, or if married, whose marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be Hindu or has been deciared by Court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind,

has the capacity to take son or daughter in adoption.

I r • 1[·11, ], 12. Effects of adoption. - An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and froin such date ail the ties of the child in the family of his. or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family:

Provided that -

(a) the child .cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth;

(b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations; if any; attaching to ttie ownership of.such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth;

(c) the adopted child shali not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.

16. Presumption • • • · , I as ~ to registered documents relating to ? I ~

. ...,,,

-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."

17. Section 6 reproduced above enumerates the requisites

of valid adoption. It lays down that no adoption shall be valid unless the person adopting has the capacity as also the right to take in adoption; the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption, and the adoption is made in compliance with the oth@r conditions mentioned in Chapter 11. Section 7 lays down thaf any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is riot minor has · the capacity to take son . ' or daughter in adoption. This is subject to the rider enshrined in the proviso which lays down that if the male Hindu has wife living then he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife unless she is incapacitated to give the consent by reason of her having completely and finally renounced the world or her having ceased to be Hindu or she has ·been declared QY court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. The-explanation appended to Section 7 lays down that if person has more than one wife living at the time of adoption, then the consent of all the wives is sine qua non for valid adoption unless either of them suffers from any of the disabilities specified in the proviso to Section 7. Section 8 enumerates the conditions, which mustbe satisfied · for adoption by female Hindu. Section 12 deals with effects of adoption. It declares that from the date of the adoption, an adopted child is deemed to be child of his/her adoptive father or mother for all purposes and his ties in the family of his or her birth shall stand severed and replaced by those created in the adoptive family. Proviso (a) to this section contains restriction on the marriage of adopted child with person to whom he or she could not have married if he or she had

(2011] 1 S.C.R.

continued in the family of his or her birth. Clause (b) of the proviso saves the vested right of the adopted child in the property subject to the obligations, if any, attached to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain ~elatives in the family of his or her birth. Likewise, clause (c) to the proviso lays down that the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate,vested in him or her before the date of adoption. Section 16 which embodies rule of presumption lays down that whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force evidencing adoption and signed by the person giving and person taking the child in adoption is produced before any court, then it shall presume that the adoption has been made after complying with the provisions of the Act unless proved otherwise.

18. In Indian society, male spouse enjoyed the position

of dominance for centuries together. This was particularly so in Hindu families. Under the old Hindu Law, Hindu male had an absolute right to adopt male child and his wife did not have the locus to question his right or to object to the adoption. wife could adopt son to her husband but she could not do so during her husband's lifetime without his express consent. After his death, she could adopt son to him, in certain parts of India, only if he had expressly authorized her to do so. In other parts of India, she could adopt without such auihority. Ho~ever, in no case wife or widow could adopt son to herself. An adoption by woman married or unmarried of son to herself was invalid and conferred no legal rights upon the adopted person. daughter could not be adopted by male or female Hindu. The physicaLaclof giving was prime necessity of the ceremonial requirements relating to adoption. As to datta homam, that is, oblations of clarified butter to fire, the law was not finally settled and there was divergence of judicial opinion.

19. After India became sovereign, democratic republic, this position has undergone sea change. The old Hindu Law has been codified to large extent on the basis of constitutional

principles of equality. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 codifies the law on the subjec,t of marriage and divorce. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ··codifies the law relating to intestate succession. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 , codifies the law relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus. The 1956 Act is also part of the scheme of 8 codification of laws. Once the Hindu Succession Act was passed giving equal treatment to the sons and daughters in the matter of succession, ~t was only logical that the fundamental guarantee of equality of status and equality before law is recognized in the matter of adoption. The 1956 Act now provides for adoption of boys as well as girls. £y virtue of the proviso to Section 7, the consent of wife has been made condition precedent for adoption by male Hindu. The mandatory requirement of the wife's consent enables her to participate in the decision making process which vitally affects the family. If the wife finds that the choice of the person to be adopted by the husband is not appropriate or is not in the interest of the family then she can veto his discretion. female Hindu who is of sound mind and has. completed the age of eighteen years can also take son or daughter in adoption to herself and in her own right. female Hindu who is unmarried or widow or divorcee can also adopt son to herself, in her own right, provided she has no Hindu daughter or son's daughter living at the time of adoption [Sections 8, 11 (1) and 11 (2)). However, if she is married, female Hindu cannot adopt son or daughter during the lifetime of her husband unless . the husband is of unsound mind or has renounced the world. By incorporating the requirement of wife's consent in the proviso to Section 7 and by conferring independent right upon female Hindu to adopt child, Parliament has tried to achieve one of the facets of the goal of equality enshrined in the [G ]Preamble and reflected in Article 14 read with Article 15 of the Constitution.

20. The term 'consent' used in the proviso to Section 7 and the explanation appended thereto has not been defined in the

Act. Therefore, while interpreting these provisions, the Court shall have to keep in view the legal position obtaining before enactment of the 1956 Act, the object of the new legislation and apply the rule of purposive interpretation and if that is done, it would be reasonable to say that the consent of wife envisaged in the proviso to Section 7 should either be in writing or reflected by an affirmative/positive act voluntarily and willingly done by her. If the adoption by Hindu male becomes subject matter of challenge before the Court, the party supporting the adoption has to adduce evidence to prove that the same was done with the consent of his wife. This can be done either by producing document evidencing her consent in writing or by leading evidence to show that wife had actively participated in the ceremonies of adoption with an affirmative mindset to support the action of the husband to take son or daughter in adoption. The presence of wife as spectator in the 0 assembly of people who gather at the place where the ceremonies of adoption are performed cannot be treated as her consent. In other words, the Court cannot presume the consent of wife simply because she was present at the time of adoption. The wife's silence or lack of protest on her part also cannot give rise to an inference that she had consented to the adoption.21. At this stage, we may notice some precedents which have bearing on the interpretation of proviso to Section 7 of the 1956 Act. In Kashibai v. Parwatibai (supra), this Court was called upon to consider whether in the absence of the consent of one of the two wives, the adoption by the husband could be treated valid. The facts of the case show that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 were two widows of deceased Lachiram. Plaintiff No.2 was daughter of Lachiram from his first wife Kashibai and defendant No.2 was the daughter from his second wife Parwati. Defendant No.3, Purshottam son of Meena Bai and grandson of Lachiram. The plaintiffs filed suit for separate possession by partition of double storey house, open plot and some agricultural lands. The defendants

contested the suit. One of the pleas taken by them was that Purshottam son of Meena Bai had been adopted by deceased Lachiram vide registered deed of adoption dated 29.4.1970, · who had also executed deed of Will in favour of the adopted son bequeathing the suit properties to him and thereby denying any right to the plaintiffs .to claim partition. The trial Court decreed the suit for separate possession by partition· by· observing that the defendants have failed to prove the adoption of Purshottam by Lachiram and the execution of Will in his favour. The High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and held that the defendants had succeeded in 'proving execution of the deed of adoption and the deed of Will in accordance of law and as such the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit properties. On appeal, this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and restored the decree passed by the trial Court. On the issue of adoption of Purshottam, this Court observed:

"It is no doubt true that after analysing the parties' evidence minutely the trial court took 'definite view that the defendants had failed to establish that Plaintiff 1, Defendant 1 and deceased lachiram had taken Defendant 3, Purshottam in adoption. The trial court also recorded the finding that Plaintiff 1 was not party to the Deed of Adoption as Plaintiff 1 in her evidence has specifically stated that she did not sign the Deed of Adoption nor she consented for such adoption of Purshottam and for that reason she did not participate in any adoption proceedings. On these findings the trial court took the view that the alleged adoption being against the consent of .Kashi Bai, Plaintiff 1, it was not valid by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 7 of the Act provides that any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not minor has lhe capacity to take son or daughter in adoption. It provides that if he has wife living, he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife. In the present

[2011] 1 S.C.R.

case as seen from the evidence discussed by the trial court it is abundantly clear that Plaintiff 1 Kashi Bai the first wife of deceased Lachiram had not only declined to participate in the alleged adoption proceedings but also declined to give consent for the said adoption and, therefore, the plea of alleged adoption advanced by the defendants was clearly hit by the provisions of Section 7 and the adoption cannot be said to be valid adoption."

(emphasis supplied)

22. In Brajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (supra), the Court

considered the scope of Sections 7 and 8(c) of the 1956 Act in the backdrop of the claim made by the appellant that he was validly adopted son of Mishri Bai, who was married to Padam Singh but was forced to live with her parents. In 1970, Mishri Bai claims to have adopted the appellant. After some time, she was served with notice under Section 10 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 indicating that her holding . of agricultural land was more than the prescribed limit. In her reply, Mishri Bai claimed that she and her adopted son were entitled to retain 54 acres land. The competent authority did not accept her claim. Thereupon, Mishri Bai filed suit for declaration that the appellant is her adopted son. During 1he pendency of the. suit, she executed registered Will bequeathing all her properties in favour of the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court allowed the second appeal and held that in the absence of the consent of Mishri Bai's husband, adoption of the appellant cannot be treated as valid. This Court noticed that language of Sections 7 and 8 was different and observed:

"A married woman cannot adopt at all during the

subsistence of the marriage except when the husband has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be Hindu or has been declared by court of

competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. If the . husband is not under such disqualification, the wife cannot adopt even with the consent of the husband whereas the husband can adopt with the consent of the wife. This is clear from Section 7 of the Act. Proviso thereof makes it clear that male Hindu cannot adopt except with the consent of the wife, unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be Hindu or has been declared by court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. It is relevant to note that in the ·case of male Hindu the consent of the wife is necessary unless the other contingency exists. Though Section 8 is almost identical, the consent of the husband is not provided for. The proviso to Section 7 imposes restriction in the right of male Hindu to take in adoption. In this respect the Act radically departs from the old law where no such bar was laid down to the exercise of the right of male Hindu to adopt oneself, unless he dispossesses the requisite capacity. As per the proviso to Section 7 the wife's consent must be obtained prior to adoption and cannot be subsequent to the act of adoption. The proviso lays down consent as condition precedent to an adoption which is mandatory and adoption without wife's consent would be void. Both proviso to Sections 7 and 8(c) refer to certain circumstances which have effect on the capacity to make an adoption."

(emphasis supplied)

23. We shall now consider whether the trial Court and the

· lower appellate Court had rightly held that Ghisalal was validly adopted by Gopalji and he became coparcener in the family of adoptive father and the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not commit any error by declining to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts. The consideration of this issue deserves to be prefaced with an

observation that this Court is extremely loath to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below more particularly when such finding has been approved by the High Court .. In such matters, interference is warranted only when this Court is convinced that the finding is ex facie perverse. finding of fact can be treated as perverse if it is based on no evidence or there is total misreading of pleadings and/or evidence of the parties or the finding is based on unfounded assumptions or conjectures.

24. careful scrutiny of the record reveals that in the suit filed by him, Ghisalal had pleaded that Gopalji had taken him in adoption in Baisakh of Samvat 2016 and the deed of · adoption was executed and got registered on 25.6.1964 and that Dhapubai had consented to the adoption. He challenged Gift Deeds dated 22.10.1966 executed by Gopalji in favour of Dhapubai and Sale Deed dated 19.1.1973 executed by the latter in favour of Sunderbai in respect of one parcel of land. Later on, he amended the plaint and pleaded that Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944 was invalid, inoperative and ineffective and did not affect his right to get share in the ancestral properties. He alleged that the gift deeds were obtained by fraud. Of course, he did not make specific prayer for invalidation of Gift Deed dated 29.11.1944. In her written statement, Dhapubai not only disputed the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji, but categorically averred that she had not consented to the adoption. She also questioned the locus standi of Ghisalal to challenge the gift deeds.

25. In support of his claim that he had been adopted by Gopalji, Ghisalal appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined PW-2 Omkar Lal, PW-3 Devram and PW-4 Ramniwas. He produced copy of the deed of adoption (Exhibit P-1), the plaint (Exhibit P-21) o( Suit No.76A of 1964 filed by Pannalal in which he and Gopalji were impleaded as defendant Nos.1 and 2 and copies of the written statements (Exhibits P-' 2 and P-3) filed in that suit. He also examined PW-5 Gumbhir ,

Singh, PW-6 Hiralal, PW-7 Ramchander Sharma, PW-8 lmdad "Ali, PW-9 Moolchand, PW-10 Soorajmal and PW-11 Dhoolchand to prove these documents. According to Ghisalal, he was taken in adoption at the age of 5-6 years. He gave description of the adoption ceremonies by stating that his natural father, Kishanlal had made him to sit in the lap of Gopalji and the latter accepted him as the adopted son. In paragraph 3 of his statement, Ghisalal gave out that the adoption ceremonies were performed in village Jeeran on the road in front of the house of Gopalji and about 25 to 30 persons including PW-2 Omkar Lal, PW-3 Devram were present. He further stated that Dhapubai was also there. In cross-examination, he admitted that after one to two years of adoption, he started his education in the school at Jeeran and in the school records the name of his natural father, Kishanlal was entered. He then volunteered to say that when he had gone to the Principal to get the name of his father changed, the latter told him that it will involve cost and, therefore, the change was not effected. In paragraph 5 of the cross-examination, Ghisalal disclosed that his father Kishanlal had got him admitted in the school. He then stated that after three years of execution of the adoption deed, he was separated by Gopalji. In para 10 of the cross-examination, he stated that at. the time of registration, Ramlal, Gopalji, his father Kishanlal, brother Ramniwas and Dhapubai had come along with him but he does not know whether Dhapubai had signed on the registry. He also stated that there was no talk of obtaining signature of Dhapubai in his presence but volunteered to say that she was agreeable. The other three witnesses also spoke about the ceremonies of adoption. According to them, Dhapubai was sitting below the . ' .platform (chabutra). In his cross..:examination, Omkar Lal stated that . he does not know whether Ghisalal was taken to Dhapubai. :He further stated that in his presence no talk had taken place _with Dhapubai. In his cross-examination, Devram stated that Dh~ub'' i was also there and she was sitting with the. other 'ladies. Similarly, Ramniwas spoke about presence of Dhapubai · bY stating that she was sitting by the side of the platform along

·with other ladies. In her statement, Dhapubai categoriGally stated that Gopalji had not obtained her consent for the adoption of Ghisalal and that she had not gone to tehsil for the purpose of registry. Dhabubai also stated that she doe~ not know whether Gopalji had gone to tehsil and got the registry of adoption deed. In paragraph 11 of the cross-examination, she expressed ignorance about the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji. She then stated that she did not want to take· anyone in adoption. She also spelt reasons for some of-the PWs deposing in favour of Ghisalal. The other witnesses examined by Dhapubai, namely, Rajaram (DW-2), Bherulal (DW-3}, Khanhiram (DW-4) and Madhulal (DW-5) expressed their ignorance about the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji.

26. The trial Court relied upon the statements of Ghisalal and his witnesses and recorded its conciusion in the following

words:

"From the statements of plaintiff witnesses Ghisalal, Onkarlal, Devram and Ramniwas, it becomes clear that at the adoption ceremony, Ghisalal was made to sit in the laps of Gopal and turbon was tied on his head, batashe and coconuts were distributed, Havan was not performed. And Dhapubai was also present there along with other men and women. With respect to the aforesaid facts and also about the adoption ceremony, no contradiction has been noticed in the statement of these witnesses. In these circumstances, it becomes clear that when the adoption ceremony was conducted in the presence of Dhapubai, then certainly her consent was there and it can be taken as implied consent of Dhapubai."

(emphasis supplied)

27. The trial Court also gave weightage to the state-.ment contained in the adoption deed suggesting that Gopalji and his wife were anxious to take Ghisatat in adoption.

28. The lower appellate Court briefly referred to t_he contents of the adoption deed and proceeded to observe:

" ........ It is true that there is no mention as to on which date the formalities of adoption were completed, either in the plaint or in the adoption deed, whereas the witnesses have stated in their statements that it was· in Sam bat, 2016 on the day of Teej when the adoption formalities were completed. Adoption deed is Exhibit P-1. Ghisalal's original father Kishan Lal has given in writing that he has given-Ghisalal in adoption to Gopal and he has accepted to take him in adoption. Similarly, Gopal has also accepted that he has adopted Ghisalal as his son and he has affixed his signatures. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption Act, the document Exh. P-1 proved that Ghisalal was taken in adoption. It has not been proved as to whether the mother of Ghisalal gave her consent for adoption. Such an argument was advanced by the learned advocate of the appellant, but acceptance of such type is essential. There is no such provision in the aforesaid Hindu Adoption Act. It is proved by the circumstantial evidence that the · appellant Dhapubai had given her consent to Gopal to adopt Ghisalal as his son. The brothers of Ghisalal i.e. Ramnivas (P.W.4), Omkarlal, PW-2 and Devram, PW-3 in their statements have accepted that customary function of adoption was held and in that function the appellant Dhapubai herself was present."

(emphasis supplied)

29. Though, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court - did not advert to Section 7 of the 1956 Act, the learned Single Judge referred to that section and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Moolchand Chhotalal v. Amritbai Manji Khoda Bhai and others (1976) MPLJ 382 and held that the ' consent of wife can be inferred from the circumstances. The learned Single Judge noted that th.e adoption deed was duly registered and held that in view of Section 16 of the 1956 Act,

[2011) 1 S.C.R

presumption can be raised that the adoption had been made after complying with the relevant provisions. The learned Single Judge then observed that Dhapubai had not challenged the correctness, authenticity and validity of the adoption deed till the filing of written statement and held that the gift deeds appear to have been executed to frustrate the effect of the adoption and ordinarily there was no reason for the husband to gift his entire estate to his wife.

30. In our view, the trial Court, the lower appellate Court

and the learned Single Judge of the High Court misdirected themselves in deciding the issue relating to Dhapubai's consent to the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji. All the Courts held that the consent of Dhapubai can be presumed because she was present in the ceremonies of adoption. The learned Single Judge went step further and observed that failure of Dhapubai to challenge the adoption deed is strong circumstance which goes to show that she had consented to the adoption of Ghisalal by her husband. Unfortunately, all the Courts completely ignored that presence of Dhapubai in the ceremonies of adoption was only as mute spectator and not as an active parUcipant. Neither Ghisalal nor any of the witnesses examined by him stated that before taking Ghisalal in adoption, Gopalji had consulted Dhapubai or taken her in confidence and the latter had given her consent or agreed to the adoption of Ghisalal or that she had taken prominent part in the adoption ceremonies. All .of them made parrot like statement that Dhapubai was sittiflg with other women below the platform {chabutra). By no stretch of imagination, this could be equated with her active participation in the adoption ceremonies so as to enable the Courts to draw an inference that she had given consent for the adoption of Ghisalal.

31. Another grave error committed by all the Courts is that they have presumed the consent of Dhapubai by relying upon the contents of the deed of adoption (Exhibit -P-1) in whicb-Gopalji is said to have recorded that it was his and his wif~1$-

esteemed desire to t~ke Ghisalal in adoption. It was neither the pleaded case of--Gh1salal nor any evidence was produced by him to prove that Dhapubai was signatory to Exhibit P-1 or ·that she was present at the time of execution and/or registration of Exhibit P-1. Therefore, the contents of Exhibit P-1 could not be made basis for assuming that Dhapubai was party to the s adoption of Ghisalal.

32. The so called failure of Dhapubai to challenge Exhibit

P-1 cannot be used against her because Ghisalal did not adduce any evidence to show that after execution of the deed of adoption, Dhapubai was made aware of the same or copy thereof was made available to her. In the aboonce of such evidence, it cannot be assumed that Dhapubai was aware of the execution and registration of the deed of adoption and she deliberately omitt.ed to challenge the same.

33. While analyzing and evaluating the evidence of the

parties, the Courts below failed to notice an important lacuna in Ghisalal's case, that is, non examination of Kishanlal who, as per Ghisalal's own version had not only taken active part in the ceremonies of adoption but was also signatory to the deed of adoption. The statements of PW-7 Ramchander Sharma, Advocate and his clerk PW-8 lmdad Ali show that the written statement in the suit filed by Pannalal was drafted under the instructions of Kishanlal and he had signed the same as . guardian of Ghisalal. This shows that Kishanlal had played the most pivotal role in the adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji. Therefore, he was the best person who could support Ghisalal's plea that he was taken in adoption by Gopalji and Dhapubai had given consent for the same. No explanation has been given why Kishanlal was not examined despite the fact that he was not only actively involved at various stages of the adoption but . was also instrumental in Ghisalal's admission in the school and defending the case filed by Pannalal. If the statements of Ghisalal and Devram are read in conjunctiqn with the fact that written statement in Suit No.76A of 1964 Pannalal v. Ghisalal and another was filed by Kishanlal in February, 1966, there

remains no doubt that testimony of Kishanlal was most crucial and yet he was not examined. The trial Court did take cognizance of this omission but brushed aside the same with cryptic observation that no objection was raised from the side of the defendants that plaintiff was not given in adoption by his natural father. The lower appellate Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not even advert to this important lacuna which, in our view, would have made any person of reasonable prudence to doubt the bonafides of Ghisalal's claim that he was adopted by Gopalji with the consent of Dhapubai.

34. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the

concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, which was approved by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that Gopalji had adopted Ghisalal with the consent of Dhapubai is perverse inasmuch as the same is based on unfounded assumptions and pure conjectures. We further hold that Dhapubai had succeeded in proving that the adoptior. of Ghisa'.al by Gopalji was not valid because her consent had not been obtained as per the mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the 1956 Act. As corollary, it is held that the suit filed by Ghisalal for gr,ant of decree that he is entitled to one half share in the properties of Gopalji was not maintainable and the findings recorded by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court and/or the High Court on the validity of Gift Deeds dated 29.11.1944 and 22.10.1966, Will dated 27 .10.1975 executed by Gopalji in favour of Dhapubai and Sale Deed dated 19.1.1973 executed by her in favour of Sunderbai are liable to be set aside.

35. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos.6375-6376 of 2002 are

allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court and the High Court are set aside and the suit filed by Ghisalal is dismissed. As sequel to this, Civil Appeal Nos.6373-6374 of 2002 are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Appeals disposed of ..