Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AFFIRMS VALIDITY OF ADOPTION IN ABSENCE OF REGISTERED DEED, EMPHASIZES FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS

04 September 2024 10:37 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka has affirmed the validity of an adoption despite the absence of a registered adoption deed. The court emphasized that the fulfillment of conditions laid out under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is pivotal in establishing the legitimacy of an adoption. The judgment, delivered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, sheds light on the importance of ceremonies, consent, and the effect of adoption on the status of the adopted child.

High court stated, “The Act does not require a registered adoption deed to validate an adoption. What matters is the act of adoption itself, accompanied by proper ceremonies and the fulfillment of statutory conditions.” The court further highlighted that the absence of an adoption deed does not invalidate the adoption if the essential conditions for a valid adoption are met.

The case cantered around a dispute over the adoption of a child by his maternal uncle. The defendants argued that the child had been legally adopted and presented oral evidence, such as witness testimony and a Will, to support their claim. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish the ceremonies of giving and taking the child, as well as the consent of both the natural and adoptive parents.

Regarding the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the court clarified that the provision applies only to registered adoption documents. The court emphasized that the presumption is not a requirement for a valid adoption and that oral evidence, when supported by fulfilling the necessary conditions, can establish the legitimacy of an adoption.

The judgment reaffirms the burden of proof in adoption disputes, placing the onus on the party asserting adoption to provide substantial evidence. In this case, the court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and upheld the trial court’s decision, which granted the plaintiff a 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties.

This ruling serves as a precedent, shedding light on the significance of proper ceremonies, consent, and fulfillment of conditions in validating adoptions, even in the absence of a registered adoption deed.

Date of Decision: 10th July 2023

N.L. MANJUNATHA  vs   B.L. ANANDA @ B.L

Latest Legal News