RATANLAL @ BABULAL CHUNILAL SAMSUKA versus SUNDARABAI GOVARDHANDAS SAMSUKA(D) TH. LRS.& ORS.

RATANLAL @ BABULAL CHUNILAL SAMSUKA versus SUNDARABAI GOVARDHANDAS SAMSUKA(D) TH. LRS.& ORS.

A married man cannot be adopted unless a custom or usage, as defined in Section 3(a) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, is pleaded and proved to permit such adoption. The appellant failed to plead or prove existence of such custom in Jain community, and insufficient and contradictory evidence was adduced in support of adoption. Hence, the appeal fails.

Parties
Appellant: Ratanlal @ Babulal Chunilal Samsuka; Respondents: Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka (D) through LRS & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court After High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Proof of Custom, Burden of Proof, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
Family Law Adoption Proof of Custom Burden of Proof 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ratanlal @ Babulal Chunilal Samsuka

Appellant

Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka (D) through LRS & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court After High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a married man can be adopted under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 based on custom
  2. 2 Whether custom allowing adoption of married men in Jain community was pleaded and proved
  3. 3 Whether the appellant could plead and prove the factum of adoption

Ratio Decidendi

A married man cannot be adopted unless a custom or usage, as defined in Section 3(a) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, is pleaded and proved to permit such adoption. The appellant failed to plead or prove existence of such custom in Jain community, and insufficient and contradictory evidence was adduced in support of adoption. Hence, the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with High Court judgment
  • No order as to costs