Summary
A married man aged 32 claimed adoption by his paternal uncle under a Jain custom. The Court upheld the rejection of his claim because the alleged custom had not been properly pleaded or proved and the evidence of adoption contained material contradictions and unexplained suspicious circumstances.
Issues
- Whether prior judicial recognition dispensed with pleading and proof of the alleged custom permitting adoption of a married adult.
- Whether the claimant discharged the burden of proving adoption.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(a) and 10(iii)–(iv), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956A custom allowing adoption of a married person or one above15 must satisfy the statutory requirements and be shown applicable to the parties. (¶ 9–14)
Held
- Custom requires continuity, certainty, long usage and reasonableness, with clear proof of acceptance as binding rather than mere common practice. Judicial recognition may be relevant, but judicial notice requires sufficient recognition in the relevant jurisdiction and comparable circumstances. The claimant established neither proper pleading nor proof here. (¶ 12–18)
- Adoption changes the normal course of succession and therefore carries a heavy burden of proof on the person asserting it. Oral evidence without documentary support requires particular caution, and suspicious circumstances must be satisfactorily explained; the burden could not be placed on the plaintiff denying adoption. (¶¶ 19–20, 24)
- The witnesses materially contradicted each other about the ceremony. The claimant’s continued use of his biological father’s name, missing supporting material and failure to establish the asserted custom reinforced the conclusion that adoption was not proved. The decision did not recognise a universal Jain custom permitting adult married adoption. (¶ 21–25)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; High Court declaration that the appellant was not the adopted son and associated restraint upheld.