HARNEK SINGH versus PRITAM SINGH & ORS.

HARNEK SINGH versus PRITAM SINGH & ORS.

Adoption of a married man above 15 years without pleading and proving a custom that permits such adoption is invalid under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of custom among Jats of District Ambala permitting such adoption. The factum of adoption was not proven as adoptive father denied it. Both appellate courts' findings were correct and not perverse.

Parties
Appellant: Harnek Singh; Respondent: Pritam Singh; Respondent: Surjan Singh; Respondent: Ajay Pal; Respondent: Rupinder Sheoren
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Appellate Stage)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Custom, Validity of Adoption, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
Family Law Adoption Custom Validity of Adoption Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harnek Singh

Appellant

Pritam Singh

Respondent

Surjan Singh

Respondent

Ajay Pal

Respondent

Rupinder Sheoren

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Appellate Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adoption of a married person above 15 years without proven custom is valid under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged custom among Jats of District Ambala allowing adoption of persons above 15 years was established.
  3. 3 Whether the gift deed executed by Sarup Singh in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

Adoption of a married man above 15 years without pleading and proving a custom that permits such adoption is invalid under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of custom among Jats of District Ambala permitting such adoption. The factum of adoption was not proven as adoptive father denied it. Both appellate courts' findings were correct and not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed