SYNOPSIS OF PROJECT FAMILY LAW -1

Chandan Bilasini and another v Aftabuddin Khan and Others (AIR 1996 SC591
1996)

Bench - Sujata V. Manohar, M.M. Punchhi

ACTS REFERRED

Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 s. 16

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Indian Succession Act, 1925

Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 art. 58

Specific Relief Act, 1963

Headnote - Family & Personal - Hindu Adoptions Maintenance Act, 1956 - Some other
persons who were present at adoption ceremony were not examined - Whether it can
considered as making adoption doubtful? - Held, adoption took place by ceremony of giving
and taking - Adoption valid - Appeal disposed of.
Facts - Chandan Bilasini Dasi was married to one Kalikrishna Sarkar who died on
11.12.1905 leaving a will under which, inter alia, he had authorised his widow, the original
plaintiff No. 1 to adopt a son and in the event of the adopted son's death to adopt a second
son. The adoption had to be made with the consent of the executors. Accordingly the first-
plaintiff had adopted one Sudhanshu Mohan Sarkar as per the directions contained in the Will
of Kalikrishna. Sudhanshu Mohan Sarkar died in an unmarried state on 7.3.65. Thereafter she
adopted the said respondent Amaresh Sarkar on 24.8.65. By this time all the executors were
dead. She also executed a registered deed acknowledging the adoption of Amaresh Sarkar
which is dated 30.9.65. This deed, however, was not counter-signed by the natural parents of
the adopted child. The natural father executed a deed acknowledging adoption which is dated
15.4.67. This deed is also registered. Apart from these documents, evidence was led in order
to prove the ceremony of giving and taking in adoption. It is necessary to bear in mind that
this second adoption took place after coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and
maintenance Act, 1956 under which the first- plaintiff Chandan Bilasini Das being a widow
was entitled to adopt a son even otherwise than under the authority given to her under the
Will of her deceased husband. PWs 1, 2 and 6 have given oral evidence relating to the
adoption ceremony. PW1, who is the natural father of the adopted son has given evidence to
the effect that the adoption took place on 24.8.65 and the ceremony of giving and taking in
adoption was performed. A priest was also present and Kalasa Pooja Homa, were performed.
PW2 is the priest who performed the adoption ceremony and PW6 is an attesting witness to
the deed of adoption which was executed by the adoptive mother on 30.9.65. He was also
present at the time of the adoption ceremony. On adoption of the respondent Amaresh Sarkar
by the widow of the deceased Kalikrishna Sarkar, the adopted son Amaresh Sarkar sevared
his ties with his natural family and became a part of the adoptive family. The question here is
whether the Adoption is Valid under Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956. The
High court ruled that Amaresh Sarkar was not adopted by Chandan Bilasini and in
accordance with provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenancre Act,1956.

QUESTION OF LAW

Whether the Adoption of by is Valid and satisfying all the Criterias as laid down under
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956?

Whether the suit is barred by limitation Act?

Kartar Singh (Minor) Through Guardian Bachan Singh v Surjan Singh (Dead) and Others
1974 Indlaw SC 124, (1974) 2 SCC 559, AIR 1974 SC 2161, 1975 HLR 78, [1975] 1 S.C.R.
742, 1974 UJ 603

Konchada Laxminarayan Subudhi and Another v Konchada Padmanav Subudhi and Others
1972 Indlaw ORI 67, AIR 1973 ORI 3

 Banwarilal Agarwalla v State of Bihar and Others

1961 Indlaw SC 526, AIR 1961 SC 849, 1961 CRLJ 12, 1961 (3) FLR 253, 1961 (2) LLJ
140, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 33
  Shri Manna Lal and v Collector of Jhalawar
1960 Indlaw SC 200, AIR 1961 SC 828, 1961 CRLJ 1, 1961 (3) FLR 241, 1961 (2) LLJ 146,
1961 (1) SCJ 665, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 962

Arbn. Satyanarain Biswanath v Harakchand Rupchand

1954 Indlaw CAL 151, AIR 1955 CAL 225

Contentions of Plaintiffs- Mr. Mahapatra

Contentions Of Defendants by Mr.Dutta

1) Under the Will (Ext. 11) Chandan Bilasini had not been given a life estate and as a
residuary legatee she derived the full estate;

(2) The learned Single Judge has gene wrong in holding that Section 307 of the Indian
Succession Act read with Section 211 thereof had no application to the case;

(3) Even it at the time of alienation there was any defect in the title of the alienor widow, she
having become a full owner, the alienation bound her and she was estopped from challenging
it;

(4) The suit with a mere declaratory relief when the plaintiffs were out of possession was not
maintainable and, therefore, the suit had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court and the
learned Single Judge was not entitled to fill up the lacuna by decreeing the relief of recovery
of possession even without amendment of the plaint;

(5) The suit was barred by limitation as it had been brought beyond three years from the date
of execution of the sale deed;

(6) Adoption of plaintiff No. 2 having not been established, on the death of plaintiff No. 1, he
was not entitled to maintain the appeal and the litigation should have been declared to have
abated.

Cases in support of defendants

Kali Prashad Gope v. Ram Golam Sahu, AIR 1937 Pat 16