Summary
The Supreme Court rejected title claims based on a registered will and registered adoption deed because neither was proved in accordance with law. Registration did not dispense with statutory proof of the will, and the adoption presumption was rebutted by the conflicting evidence and suspicious circumstances. The claimant consequently obtained neither absolute ownership under the will nor an alternative share as an adopted son.
Issues
- Whether the registered will was proved when its attesting witnesses were unavailable.
- Whether registration and the evidence established a valid adoption despite the contrary circumstances.
- Whether the claimant acquired any share in the deceased’s property under either instrument.
Provisions considered
- Section 63(c), Indian Succession Act, 1925Due testamentary attestation must be proved; registration and proof of an asserted signature alone do not establish proper execution of a will. (¶¶ 18, 20–28)
- Sections 68, 69 and 71, Indian Evidence Act, 1872When attestors are unavailable, Section 69 requires proof of the requisite attestor’s handwriting and the executant’s signature. Affidavits and unreliable identification did not satisfy that alternative route; Section 71 is a limited safeguard, not a general substitute for proof. (¶ 19–32)
- Section 16, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956The registered deed attracted a rebuttable presumption of valid adoption, but contrary evidence and the cumulative suspicious circumstances rebutted it here. (¶¶ 35, 37–46, 55)
- Section 11(vi), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956Actual giving and taking with the requisite intention is essential. Datta homam is not indispensable, but the evidence did not convincingly establish the statutory act of giving and taking. (¶¶ 36, 41–45, 48–55)
Held
- Registration does not confer automatic validity on a will. Its propounder must prove due execution and attestation, testamentary capacity and free volition, and remove suspicious circumstances. (¶ 18–28)
- Neither attesting witness was examined. The Section 69 alternative failed because no reliable proof of an attestor’s handwriting was supplied; merely marking affidavits or producing a witness asserting that he saw a signature did not satisfy the statutory requirement on this record. (¶ 29–32)
- The earlier will used as the basis of fingerprint comparison was itself unproved. The registration witnesses did not personally know the executant, so the comparison and identification did not establish the disputed will’s genuineness. (¶ 30–32)
- The disputed will also remained surrounded by unexplained circumstances, including abrupt disinheritance of the grandson despite evidence of amicable relations and conflicting accounts of who gave instructions to the scribe. (¶ 33–34)
- The registered adoption deed initially attracted Section 16, and the challenger bore the burden of rebuttal. The presumption was sufficiently rebutted by the cumulative evidence; registration did not prevent scrutiny of actual adoption. (¶ 35–46)
- The claimant did not convincingly prove actual giving and taking. Conflicting accounts of the venue, doubtful identification in photographs, witness inconsistencies and irregularities in the deed undermined the claim. Hair colour alone was expressly insufficient to decide identity, and datta homam was not treated as legally essential. (¶ 47–54)
- As neither the will nor adoption was proved, the claimant had no entitlement to any right or share through those alleged transactions. The High Court’s result was upheld although the Supreme Court’s reasons differed. (¶ 55)
Result
Appeal dismissed. High Court judgment and decree confirmed; claimant’s claims under the will and adoption rejected. Parties to bear their own appeal costs.