NDLI: Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, Through Lrs.)

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Evidence Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Suit filed by the appellant (then a minor) through his guardian claiming right and title over the properties of late ‘V’, who as per his claim had adopted him, under a registered Will. Trial Court decreed the suit. High Court whether justified in allowing the appeal filed by V’s grandson, ‘GK’. Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.68, 69 – Legal requirements to prove a Will – Suit was filed by the appellant, through his guardian, for declaration of his title to the suit properties belonging to late ‘V’ and for recovery of their possession from V’s grandson-‘GK’ (who was her grandson through her deceased daughter) – It was his case that he was adopted by ‘V’ by a registered Adoption Deed – Appellant was the son of V’s brother’s son – As per him ‘V’ had executed registered Will bequeathing all her properties to him and canceled her earlier Will, executed in favour of ‘GK’ – Trial Court held in favour of the appellant – Decision reversed by High Court:Held: For the purposes of s.69, it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix his signature in the Will – The very purpose and objective of insisting upon examination of at least one attesting witness to the Will would be entirely lost if such requirement is whittled down to just having a stray witness depose that he saw the attesting witness sign the Will – Neither of the attesting witnesses to the Will were examined before the Trial Court, in compliance with s.68 – Therefore, s.69 could have been made use of to prove the Will but no witness was examined who was familiar with the signature of either of the attesting witnesses and who could vouch for the same or produce an admitted signature before the Trial Court – Will not proved in accordance with law and has no legal consequence – Disowning of her own grandson by ‘V’ under Will is a suspicious circumstance that remained unexplained – Too many suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will make it very difficult to accept and act upon the same, even if it had been proved as per law – Further, adoption of the appellant is not proved in accordance with law despite the registration of Adoption Deed – On facts, the very adoption, itself, is not believable, given the multitude of suspicious circumstances surrounding it – Therefore, appellant cannot be treated as V’s heir by adoption thus, not entitled to claim any right or share in her properties – Findings of the High Court to that effect, albeit for reasons altogether different, do not warrant interference – Judgment of the High Court confirmed – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – s.63 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.16. [Paras 30, 32, 55] Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – ss.16, 11 – Presumption u/s.16 in favour of a registered document relating to adoption, rebuttable – Appellant claimed a halfshare in V’s properties relying on the adoption ceremony and the registered Adoption Deed:Held: The presumption is rebuttable – On facts, the adoption ceremony and the Adoption Deed are shrouded with equally suspicious circumstances – As the Adoption Deed was registered, the presumption u/s.16 attached to it and it was for ‘GK’ (V’s grandson) to rebut that presumption, who did so more than sufficiently – Mere registration of the Adoption Deed did not absolve the person asserting such adoption from proving that fact by cogent evidence and the person contesting it from adducing evidence to the contrary – It is in this respect that various suspicious circumstances attached to the adoption ceremony of assume significance – The actual ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption, is an essential requisite u/s.11(vi) however, there is no convincing evidence of that ‘act’ also in the case on hand – There are no pictures of the actual ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption. [Paras 35, 46 and 50]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 1004
Petitioner	Moturu Nalini Kanth
Respondent	Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, Through Lrs.)
SCR	[2023] 16 S.C.R. 644
Judgement Date	2023-11-20
Case Number	2435

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, Through Lrs.)

Please Log-in to view this content

Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. K.v.p. Shastri (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Sitaramacharya (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Gururajacharya (dead) Through Lrs.

Smt. Gomtibai (dead) Through Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Mattulal (dead) Through Lrs.

Ram Adhar Singh (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Bansi (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

R. Kapilnath (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Krishna

Kashinath (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Jaganath

Narasamma & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnappa (dead) Through Lrs.

Hirachand Kothari (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Saraswati and Ors. Vs. Lachanna (dead) Through Lrs.

Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, Through Lrs.)

Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, Through Lrs.)

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. K.v.p. Shastri (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Sitaramacharya (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Gururajacharya (dead) Through Lrs.

Smt. Gomtibai (dead) Through Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Mattulal (dead) Through Lrs.

Ram Adhar Singh (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Bansi (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

R. Kapilnath (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Krishna

Kashinath (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Jaganath

Narasamma & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnappa (dead) Through Lrs.

Hirachand Kothari (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Saraswati and Ors. Vs. Lachanna (dead) Through Lrs.

Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, Through Lrs.)