Lakshman Singh Kothari V. Smt. Rup
Kanwar [1961] INSC 114 (22 March 1961)
SUBBARAO, K.
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
CITATION: 1961 AIR 1378 1962 SCR (1) 477
CITATOR INFO :
R 1970 SC1286 (9) F 1983 SC 114 (20)
ACT:
Hindu law-Adoption-Validity-Essential
requirements-Ceremony of giving and taking-Delegation of authority.
HEADNOTE:
In order that an adoption may be valid under
the Hindu Law there must be a formal ceremony of giving and taking. This is
true of the regenerate castes as well as of the Sudras.
Although no particular form is prescribed for
the ceremony, the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over, the
adoptive boy and the adoptive parent must receive him, the nature of the
ceremony varying according to the circumstances. After exercising their
volition to give and take the boy in adoption, the parents may, both or either
of them, delegate the physical act of handing over or receiving to a third
party.
Consequently, in a case where the natural
father merely sent the boy in another's company to the house of adoptive father
who received him but there was no delegation of the power to give in adoption
or the ceremony of giving and taking, 478 Held, that no valid adoption bad
taken place.
Shoshinath Ghose v. Kyishnasundari Dasi,
(1880) I. L. R. 6 Cal. 381, Krishna Rao v. Sundara Siva Rao, (1931) L. R. 58 I.
A. 148, Vijiarangam v. Lakshuman, (1871) 8 Bom, II. C. R. 244, Shamsing v.
Santabai, (1901) I. L. R. 25 Bom. 551, and Viyyamma v. Suryaprakasa Rao, I. L.
R. 1942 Mad. 608, referred to.
Biryadhmal v. Prabhabhati, A. I.R. 1939 P.C.
1952, explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE, Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal
No. 430 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated 27th October, 1953, of the former Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, in
Civil Second Appeal No. 25 of 1951.
C. B. Agarwala, S. S. Deedwani and K. P.
Gupta, for appellant.
Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, B. I.,. Aren and
Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
1961. March 22. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by SUBBA RAO, This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment
and decree of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer dated October 27, 1953,
confirming the judgment of the District Judge, Ajmer, and setting aside that of
the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 48 of 1944.
The following genealogy will be useful to
appreciate the contentions, of the parties:
Aman Singh Sujan Singh Sobhag Singh Moti
Singh Zalim Singh (defendant) Lakshamn Singh (plaintiff) It is not necessary to
give the other branches of the genealogical tree. It will be seen from the
genealogy that plaintiff Lakshman Singh's grandfather, Sobhag 479 Singh, is
defendant Moti Singh's paternal uncle. In the year 1923, Sujan Singh was aged
about 70 years, and Moti Singh was about 50 years, and Moti Singh's wife, Rup
Kanwar alias Rup Kanwar Bai, the respondent herein, who was subsequently
brought on s record in place of Moti Singh after his death, was about 45 years
old. Moti Singh had no son and, therefore, Sujan Singh was anxious to have a
boy well versed in vedic-lore to be adopted to his son Moti Singh to perpetuate
big line. On February 14, 1923, the plaintiff was brought from his father's
house to the house of Sujan Singh in Ajmer by one Hira Lal and left there. On
March 28, 1923, the plaintiff was admitted as a student in an institution
called Gurukul Kangri. He was educated in that institute from the year 1923 to
1936. On March 19, 1936, after completing his studies in the Gurukul, the
plaintiff came back to Moti Singh's house. As he was not accorded the treatment
expected of an adoptive father to an adopted son, he grew apprehensive of the
intentions of Moti Singh and filed Civil Suit No. 48 of 1944 against Moti Singh
in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer, for a declaration of
his status as an adopted son of the defendant, Moti Singh. Moti Singh in his
written statement denied that the plaintiff was his adopted son and pleaded
that the suit was barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge, on evidence,
held that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the defendant and that the suit
was not barred by limitation. On appeal, the District Judge, on a review of the
evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was never in fact adopted
by the defendant and that the ceremony of "giving and taking" did not
take place. He further found that the suit was within time. On second appeal,
the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, accepted the findings of the learned
District Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Hence the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the Judicial Commissioner has not correctly appreciated the ingredients of
the ceremony of "giving and taking" and that he should have held that
Hira Lal's; 480 bringing of the boy at the instance of his natural father to
the house of Sujan Singh, and Moti Singh receiving the boy by putting his hand
on his head were sufficient compliance with the Hindu Law doctrine of
"giving and taking" and, therefore, the adoption was valid.
Before adverting to the legal aspect of the
question raised, it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain clearly the
relevant facts in regard to the alleged handing over of the plaintiff-appellant
by his natural father to the adoptive father. In the plaint the plaintiff did
not give any particulars of his adoption; neither the date of the adoption was
mentioned nor the manner in which the necessary ceremony of "giving and
taking" was performed was stated.
The only allegation found in the plaint, was
that "...... on the 2nd June, 1926, Kothari Sujan Singhji executed a
document announcing the plaintiff by virtue of his adoption by the defendant to
be the only and sole heir and successor to all his property after the
defendant." The defendant in his written statement denied the factum of
adoption. On October 24, 1942, the trial court directed the plaintiff to give
further particulars about the date of the alleged adoption and to amend his
plaint. On November 3, 1942, he filed a statement of further particulars
alleging that he was taken in adoption between February 13, 1923, and February
23, 1923. Only during the course of the trial and particularly at the time of
arguments it was suggested that he was taken in adoption on February 14, 1923,
when Hira Lal brought him to the house of Sujan Singh. It is, therefore, clear
that till a very late stage of the suit, the plaintiff did not at any rate
think that he was taken in adoption on the date when Hira Lal brought him to
the house of Moti Singh.
The documents tiled in the case did not
establish that any ceremony of "giving and taking" took place on
February 14, 1923. Ex. P/1 dated October 21, 1922, is the letter written by
Sujan Singh, the father of the defendant, to Zalim Singh, the father of the
plaintiff. Therein it was stated that Lakshman Singh would be sent to Gurukul
for his admittance there.
481 It was also mentioned that, as Zalim
Singh wished that permission of Moti Singh was required, Moti Singh would go to
Gurukul for gathering Lakshman Singh admitted in the institution and his name
would also be entered as the guardian and father of Lakshaman Singh. This
letter only indicates that Sujan Singh was anxious that Moti Singh should take
Lakshman Singh in adoption and it does not show that actually any ceremony of
"giving and taking" took place or indicate that any such ceremony
would take place on any particular date. Ex. P/2 is a post-card dated January
31, 1923, written by Moti Singh to Zalim Singh. Therein Moti Singh asked Zalim
Singh to send Lakshman Singh, as he had to be admitted in Gurukul on February
20, 1923. There was a specific statement in the letter that "Coconut
ceremony was not being done before as the boy may or may not be admitted into
Gurukul ". The following statement in that letter is very instructive:
"After qualifying from Gurukul, he will
of course remain.
He is being educated at Gurukul with a view
to adopt." It is said that the phrase "with a view to adopt" is
not a correct translation and the correct translation is "on account of
adoption". But the context in which the said words appear leaves no room
for doubt that Moti Singh was informing Zalim Singh that no ceremony would be
performed as the boy might or might not be admitted into Gurukul. But he
assured him that he was being admitted in Gurukul only with a view to adopt
him. This letter also proves that Moti Singh did not contemplate any adoption,
at any rate till the boy was admitted in Gurukul. Ex. P/3 dated February 9,
1923, is another letter written by Moti Singh to Zalim Singh wherein Moti Singh
informed Zalim Singh that the electionmeaning selection-of students for Gurukul
would take place on February 28 and, therefore, he asked him to send Lakshman
Singh at once. Ex. P/4 is an agreement entered into between the authorities of
Gurukul Kaiigri and the parents of Lakshman Singh. In the preamble to that 482
agreement Lakshman Singh is described as the grandson of Sujan Singh. It does
not carry the matter further, as Lakshman Singh being Sujan Singh's brothers
grandson, the description would be consistent even if there was no adoption.
Ex. P/5 is the application for admission of Lakshman Singh in Gurukul. It is
not dated, but it appears to have been put in between January 3, 1923, and
February 14, 1923. It was sent by the natural father of Lakshman Singh. This
may be explained by the plaintiff that, as on the date of the application the
adoption had not taken place, the natural father signed it. Ex. P/26 is a will
executed by Sujan Singh wherein he bequeathed his properties to Moti Singh and
gave a vested remainder to Lakshman Singh.
In the document Lakshman Singh was described
as follows:
"Lachman Singh the second son of my
younger brother Sobhag Sighji's elder son Zalim Singh has been kept for the
past about 3-1/1 years". This will was executed at a time when admittedly
the relationship between Sujan Singh and Lakshman Singh was cordial. If really
the adoption had taken place before 1926, it is inconceivable that the
grandfather would not have described Lakshman Singh as the adopted son of Moti
Singh. On the contrary, it was stated that Lakshman Singh was kept for the past
3-1/4 years. This is only consistent with the case of the defendant that though
adoption was contemplated, it did not take place; but Lakshman Singh was
brought to the family of Sujan Singh and was being educated in Gurukul with a
view to take him in adoption at a later stage. What is more, whatever doubts
there may have been, they are clearly dispelled by a letter written by Laksman
Singh to his father, Zalim Singh, on May 19, 1934, i.e., after disputes arose
between the parties. Therein Lakshman Singh told his father, Zalim Singh, that
if Moti Singh did not desire to take him in adoption, he, also did not wish to
be adopted to him. He further proceeded to write to his father: "Please do
not worry in the least that at present Ba Sahib has kept, and as to what would
happen if uncle Moti Singh does not keep after him (Ba Sahib). After all 483
none but God can snatch from me the ability which you have conferred on me
". This letter establishes , two facts, namely, (i) there was no actual
adoption, but Sujan Singh had only kept Lakshman Singh it may be recalled that
the word used in the swill of Sujan Singh was also "kept"; and (ii)
that the adoption had not yet taken place, for, if the adoption had taken
place, Lakshman Singh would not write to his father that if Moti Singh did not
like to take him in adoption, he was also not willing to be adopted to him. The
documentary evidence, there. fore, clearly establishes that no ceremony of adoption
had taken place, though the boy was taken to the house of Sujan Singh with a
view to take him in adoption either after he was admitted in Gurukul or after
his education at Gurukul was completed.
The oral evidence in the case is also
consistent with the documentary evidence. P. Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 speak if a
custom in the community to which the parties belong to the effect that in that
community the consent of the person giving in adoption and the person taking in
adoption and the going of the adopted son from his original family to live in
the adoptive family wore the preliminary steps to a valid adoption. But no
attempt has been made in any of the courts below to sustain the adoption on the
alleged custom and, therefore, we do not propose to consider the evidence
relating to the alleged custom. P.W. 2, who is a maternal uncle of the
plaintiff, further says that the plaintiff was sent to Ajmer with Hira Lal and
that Hira Lal was given instructions by Zalim Singh and the father of P.W. 2 to
go via Bhilwara and Masooda and on reaching Ajmer to hand over the boy to Moti
Singh. But in the cross-examination, he said that he did not know "if the
cocoanuts about the plaintiff's adoption have been distributed or not till
now" and that he could give the date of the plaintiff's adoption. This
evidence, even if true, does not establish that Zalim Singh delegated his power
to Hira Lal to give the boy on his behalf in adoption to Moti Singh. At the
most it would show that he sent the boy 484 along with Hira Lal to Ajmer. P.W.
7 is a relation of the parties. He said that in 1923 when Lakshman Singh came
to Ajmer, he was sitting in the house of Moti Singh, that Hira Lal told Moti
Singh that he had brought Lakshman Singh as desired by him and that Moti Singh
kept the boy with him and told Hira Lal that he had done well in bringing the
boy. This evidence, even if true, only shows that Hira Lal brought the boy to
Ajmer and left him with Moti Singh.
There is nothing in this evidence to show
that Moti Singh received the boy as an adopted son and that Hira Lal banded
over the boy to Moti Singh as a delegate of the boy's natural father. The
plaintiff, as P.W. 10, described his going to Moti Singh's house thus:
"At that time my father was residing at
Udaipur. He sent me to Ajmer with one Hira Lal Dhabace. We reached the house of
Moti Singh at about 10 a.m. on or about 14-2-1923.
MOti Singh came out and received me at the
gate. Hira Lal then told him that since he had called me, he (Hira Lal) had
come with me to give me in adoption." Assuming that the plaintiff
remembered exactly what all happened when he was only 9 years old, the version
given by him does not prove that Hira Lal as a representative of his father
gave him and Moti Singh received him as a part of the ceremony of adoption. The
events narrated by him only show that Hira Lal brought him to Ajmer so that he
might be taken to Gurukul. Hira Lal, as D.W. 4, described the incident thus:
"In 1923 1 brought Lachman Singh to
Ajmer. I brought him to the house of Sujan Singh and Moti Singh. I was informed
by Zalim Singh that Moti Singh had written to him that Lachman Singh was to be
sent to Gurukul with Moti Singh and so I might go and leave him at Ajmer."
In the cross-examination he further elaborated thus:
"It is incorrect that Zalim Singh asked
me to give the plaintiff in adoption to Moti Singh.
He had said that the boy was proceeding to
Gurukul and I may go to hand over the boy to Moti Singh .........
485 When I brought the plaintiff to Ajmer,
Moti Singh placed his hand on the head of the plaintiff and said that you have
come." The version given by this witness is natural and the last answer
given by him stamps the evidence with a seal of impartiality. His evidence is
consistent with the entire documentary evidence-adduced in the case. He was
head-clerk of Raj Sri Medraj Sabha, Udaipur, and he appears to be a
disinterested witness. Without any hesitation we accept his evidence. His
evidence clearly shows that he brought the plaintiff and left him with Moti
Singh in Ajmer as he had to be sent to Gurukul. Ex. D/4 is a copy of a pamphlet
circulated by Zalim Singh to Juwan Singh Mehta. It is dated September. 6, 1938,
i.e., after disputes arose between the parties. Therein he stated what took
place on the date when the plaintiff was sent to Ajmer thus:
"Thereupon I sent Chiranjiv Laxman Singh
from Udaipur with Dhabaiji Hiralalji who was a respectable Government servant
of the Mewar State and reader to the Secretary,'Rajya Sri Mahadraj Sabha which
post I then held. Sujan Singhji, Shahji Saheblalji Khinvsara and others went up
to outside Soorajpol accompanying him (Laxman Singh). told Dhabaiji Hiralalji
that he would give Bapu on my behalf in adoption to Moti Singhji.
Respected father was at Mal Okneda near
Mander Station in the way. asked Hiralalji to have Bapu see him (Respected
father). Dhabaiji after having Laxman Singh see father took him to Bhai Sahib
Moti Singhji and Baba Ba Sahib at Ajmer who were then residing at Kaserganj.
He (Dhavaiji) giving him (Laxman Singh) to
them returned to Udaipur and informed me and said 'Moti Singhji placed his hand
upon the head of Bapu' and said, you have come. Ba Sahib very lovingly made him
sit near himself and caressing him with joy, asked of his welfare." It is
for the first time the idea of delegation has been introduced and, in our
opinion, it was done presumably on some legal advice. This is an attempt to
give a legal flavour to an ordinary act of sending a boy 486 with an elderly
gentleman to another place. We cannot act upon the self-serving statement made
by this person in 1938.
It is impossible to conceive that the
necessary ceremony of adoption, that is, "giving and taking" would be
done in such a casual manner and that the natural father or the natural mother
or the near relations would not have gone to the place of the adoptive father
if a ceremony was scheduled to take place on a particular date. We, therefore,
hold, on the evidence, oral and documentary, that Sujan Singh and Moti Singh
wanted to take the plaintiff in adoption either after the boy was admitted in
Gurukul or after he finished his education therein, that Hira Lal, on the
request of the plaintiff's father, accompanied the boy to Sujait Singh's house
at Ajmer and left him there, that Moti Singh welcomed the boy as was expected
of him and thereafter sent hint to Gurukul and that no formal ceremony of
"giving and taking" had taken place.
Even so, it was contended that the fact that
Zalim Singh sent the plaintiff through Hira Lal to Moti Singh's house and that
Moti Singh received him in his house would be sufficient compliance in law with
the requirement of "giving and taking" as understood in the Hindu
Law, when those events took pursuant to the settled intention of the parties to
take the plaintiff in adoption. A natural father, the argument proceeded, need
not physically hand over the boy to the adoptive father, but he could validly
delegate the physical act of handing over the boy to a third party as Zalim
Singh is alleged to have done in the present case.
To appreciate this argument it is necessary
to notice briefly the law of adoption vis-a-vis the ceremony of " giving
and taking" Golapeliandra Sarkar Sastri in his book on Hindu Law, 8th
edn., succinctly describes the ceremony of "giving and taking" thus
at p. 194:
"The ceremonies of giving and taking are
absolutely necessary in all cases. These ceremonies must be accompanied by the
actual delivery of the child; symbolical or constructive delivery by the mere
parol expression of intention on the part of the 487 giver and the taker
without the presence of the boy is not sufficient. Nor are deeds of gift and
acceptance executed and registered in anticipation of the intended adoption,
nor acknowledgment, sufficient by themselves to constitute legal adoption, in
the absence of actual gift and acceptance accompanied by actual delivery; a
formal ceremony being essential for that purpose." Much to the same effect
it is stated in Mayne's Hindu Law, llth edn., at p. 237:
"The giving and receiving are absolutely
necessary to the validity of an adoption. They are the operative part of the
ceremony, being that part of it which transfers the boy from one family into
another. But the Hindu Law does not require that there shall be any particular
form so far as giving and acceptance are concerned. For a valid adoption, all
that the law requires is that the natural father shall be asked by the adoptive
parent to give his son in adoption, and that the boy shall be handed over and
taken for this purpose." The leading decision on this subject is that of
the Judicial Committee is Shoshinath Ghose v. Krishnasundari Dasi (1).
That was, like the present, a case of
adoption among Sudras.
There, it was contended, inter alia, that
there was a formal adoption by giving and taking, and in the alternative it was
contended that even if there had been no formal adoption as alleged, the deeds
of giving and taking, executed in 1864, were sufficient to bring about the
adoption and that was all that was essential in the case of Sudras. Sir J. W.
Colvile, speaking for the Board, rejected
both the contentions. He accepted-the finding of the lower courts that there
was no formal giving and taking, and rejected the argument that the documents
themselves operated as a complete giving and taking of the adoptive boy. The
learned Judge observed at p. 388 thus:
"There is no decided case which shows
that there can be an adoption by deed in the manner contended for; all that has
been decided is that, amongst (1)(1880) 1 I.L.R. 6 Cal. 381.
488 Sudras, no ceremonies are necessary in
addition to the giving and taking of the child in adoption.................. it
would seem, therefore, that, according to Hindu usage, which the Courts should
accept as governing the law, the giving and taking in adoption ought to take place
by the father banding ove r the child to the adoptive mother, and the adoptive
mother declaring that she accepts the child in adoption." That a formal
ceremony of giving and taking is essential to validate the adoption has been
emphasized by the Judicial Committee again in Krishna Rao v. Sundara Siva Rao
(1). But in practice many situations had arisen when it became impossible for a
natural father to hand over the adoptive boy physically, or to an adoptive
father or mother to receive the adoptive boy physically due to physical
infirmity or other causes. In such cases Courts have stepped in and recognized
the delegation of the physical act of giving and taking provided there was an
agreement between the natural and adoptive parents to give and receive the boy
in adoption. The scope of the power of delegation has been clearly stated by
West, J., in Vijiarangam v. Lakshuman (2) thus:
"The gift and acceptance in such a case
must, as Sir T. Strange has observed be manifested by some overt act; and here
Yeshvadabai did not in person hand over her son to Savitri.
But she commissioned her uncle to do this,
being at the time too unwell to attend the ceremony herself. The Hindu Law
recognizes the vicarious performance of most legal acts;
the object of the corporeal giving and receiving
in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity (Colebrook's Digest, Book V.
T. 273, commentary), and Yeshvada's employing her uncle to perform this
physical act, which derived its efficacy from her own volition accompanying it,
cannot, we think, deprive it of its legal effect. We hold, therefore, with the
learned Judge, that the adoption is proved and effectual." This view was
approved by the Bombay High Court (1) (1931) L.R. 58 I.A. 148.
(2) (1871) 8 Bom. H.C.R. 244.
489 in Shamsing v. Santabai (1). A division
bench of the Madras High Court in Viyyamma v. Suryaprakasa Rao (2) applied the
principle to a converse case of an adoptive father delegating his power to
accept the adoptive boy to another.
Sir Lionel Leach, C.J., in extending the rule
of delegation to a case of receiving says at p. 613 thus:
"If this were not so, what would be the
position when through accident or illness the natural father or the adoptive
parent could not be present in person to do what is necessary? There could be
no adoption." Further citation would be redundant. It is, therefore,
settled law that, after the natural and adoptive parents exercised their
volition to give and take the boy in adoption, either of them could, under
certain unavoidable compelling circumstances, delegate his right to give 'or
the right to receive the adoptive son, as the case may be, to a third party.
Strong reliance is placed by learned counsel
for the appellant on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Biradhmal v.
Prabhabhati (3). There a widow executed a deed of adoption whereby she
purported to have adopted as son to her deceased husband a boy. The
Sub-Registrar before whom the document was registered put to the boy's natural
father and to the widow questions whether they had executed the deed. The boy
was also present at that time. The Judicial Committee held that, under the said
circumstances, there was proof of giving and taking. The question posed by the
Privy Council was stated thus: "The sole issue discussed before their
Lordships was the question of fact whether on 30th June, 1924, at about 6 p.m.
when the adoption deed wag being registered the boy was present and was given
by Bhanwarmal and taken by the widow". The question so posed was answered
thus at p. 155:
"......... their Lordships think that
the evidence that the boy was present at the time when the sub-registrar put to
his father and to the widow the (1) (1901) I.L. R. 25 Bom551 (2) I.L.R. 1942
Mad. 608.
(3) A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 152.
62 490 questions whether they had executed
the deed is sufficient to prove a giving and taking." This sentence is
rather laconic and may lend support to the argument that mere putting questions
by the Sub-Registrar would amount to giving and taking of the adoptive boy; but
the subsequent discussion makes it clear that the Privy Council had not laid
down any such wide proposition. Their Lordships proceeded to observe:
"Even if the suggestion be accepted that
the auspicious day ended at noon on the 30th and that the deed was executed
before noon and before the boy arrived at Ajmer, it seems quite probable that
the registration proceedings which were arranged for 6 p.m.
would be regarded as a suitable occasion for
carrying out the very simple ceremony that was necessary." These observations
indicate that on the material placed before the Privy Council-it is not
necessary to say that we would come to the same conclusion on the same
material-it hold that there was giving and taking of the boy at about 6 p.m.
when the document was given for registration. The Judicial Committee, in our
view, did not intend to depart from the well recognized doctrine of Hindu Law
that there should be a ceremony of giving and taking to validate an adoption.
The law may be briefly stated thus: Under the
Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be
a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to
another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The
object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure
due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal
ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law
requires that the natural parent shall band over the adoptive boy and the
adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary
depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be,
and giving and taking shall be part of it. The 491 exigencies of the situation
arising out of diverse circumstances necessitated the introduction of the
doctrine of delegation; and, therefore, the parents, after exercising their
volition to give and take the boy in adoption, may both or either of them
delegate the physical act of handing over the boy or receiving him,. as the
case may be, to a third party.
In the present case, none of the aforesaid
conditions has been satisfied. The High Court found that Zalim Singh and Moti
Singh did not decide to take the boy in adoption on February 14, 1923. The High
Court further found that their common intention was to take. the boy in
adoption only after he was admitted in Gurukul or thereafter. The documents
filed and the oral evidence adduced in the case establish that the adoptive
father did not delegate his power to give the boy in adoption to Moti Singh to
Hira Lal and that Moti Singh did not receive the boy as a part of the ceremony
of adoption, but only received him with a. view to send him to Gurukul. We.
therefore, hold that the ceremony of giving and taking, which is very essential
for the validity of an adoption, had not taken place in this case.
In the result, we hold, agreeing with the
Judicial' Commissioner, that the appellant was not adopted by Moti Singh. The
appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
