FACTS

Ratanlal, the appellant was born to Mr. Chunilal. However, right from his childhood Ratanlal lived with his paternal uncle and claimed adoptive father, Mr. Govardhandas.

Upon the death of Mr. Govardhandas, his wife, Mrs. Sundarabai filed a notice denying the adoption of Ratanlal, and moved the Court for a declaration that Ratanlal was not her adoptive son.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

ISSUES

The issues in contention before the Honorable Supreme Court are as follows:

Issue 1:Whether the appellant is required to prove a custom that has been judicially recognised?

Issue 2:Whether the appellant is to be considered a legally valid adopted son of the respondent?

RULES

1. Section 2of HAMA⁴(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”): The application of the Act holds that adoptions within the Jain community are governed by the
2. Section 3(a)⁵lays down the definition and essential ingredients for a custom to be
3. Section 10(iii)⁶states that a married person cannot be adopted, unless there exists a custom which permits the
4. Section 10(iv)⁷states that a person above 15 years of age cannot be adopted, unless there exists a custom which permits the

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Whether claimant is required to prove a custom that has been judicially recognised?

In consideration of the appellants claim, the Court reviewed the following judicial and legal principles:

Collector of Madura vs. Moottoo Ramalinga Sathupathy

The Court reviewed and upheld the case of Collector of Madura vs. Moottoo Ramalinga Sathupathy⁸, wherein it was held that clear proof of usage of a custom⁹would outweigh the written text of law¹⁰. Thus, the Apex Court held that when customs are pleaded at equal parlance with written law¹¹, they should be strictly proved¹².

It further debunked the presumption that the written law prevails over the claim of a custom and held that if the claimant satisfies the burden of proving the existence of the custom¹³, and if the custom in question satisfies the essential ingredients¹⁴ as laid down under Section 3(a), the Court, the claim of the custom shall be granted by the Courts¹⁵.

Custom evolves by conduct

The Court held that while the claimed custom is willfully accepted as having the force of law, a custom evolves by conduct and therefore, its validity cannot solely be measured by its historic judicial recognition. The judicial recognition of a custom is relevant for the establishment of its validity, but the claimant must still satisfy his burden of establishing said custom.

Issue 2: Whether the appellant is to be considered a legally valid adopted son of the respondent?

Burden of Proof in Adoption

The Honourable Supreme Court, in reviewing the evidence presented before it, held that the burden of proof in adoption is heavy¹⁶ as an adoption can change the course of succession, change the expected rights of the daughters and wives of a family, and it is thus essential for the evidence to be free from suspicion.

Consideration of Oral Evidence

Since the photos of the adoption ceremony do not portray the ceremony itself, the only evidence to be considered by the Court is the oral evidence by way of the testimony of the Priest.

However, in line withRahasaPandiani vs. Gokulananda Panda¹⁷,which held that if a claimant relies solely oral evidence to support his contention of adoption, and it is not supported by any other registered document, the Court must exercise a great deal of caution in considering the oral evidence.

The testimony of the witnesses examined in this case was found to be contradictory, and thus the appellant failed to satisfy the Court in its evidence presented. Further, the Apex Court held that the Trial Court was mistaken in placing the burden of disproving the adoption on Sundarabai, which is against the law.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS: VALIDITY OF THE ADOPTION OF MARRIED PERSONS IN THE JAIN

COMMUNITYIN INDEPENDENT INDIA 

This case presented the Supreme Court with an opportunity, for the first time since independence, to address the lacuna in the law i.e., the existing gap in the current law that governs the adoption within the Jain Community and their customs. However, the factual matrix of the current case hindered the Apex Court from addressing the gap.

In Rup Chand vs. Jambu Parshad¹⁸, the custom concerning the present was called into question before the Privy Council. It was held that this custom was exercised by a very small number of the Jain Community, and was thus insufficient to establish a widely practiced custom.

On the contrary, in the case of Sheokuarbai vs. Jeoraj¹⁹, the Privy Council recognised the custom in question and held that the adoption of a married and older person is valid within the Jain Community. This position was consistently upheld by the Privy Council in a plethora of cases includingAsharji Kunwar v. Rup Chand²⁰, Govindram v. Sheoprasad²¹, Manohar Lal vs Banarsi Das²², Chiman Lal vs Hari Chand²³.

Thus, in view of the grounds established by the Privy Council, the Supreme Court in the current case must have reaffirmed the validity of the custom in Independent India and upheldRatanlal’s adoption, if the appellant had pleaded for the establishment of the custom.

Therefore, there exists a gap in the current law that governs the adoption within the Jain Community and their customs.

CONCLUSION 

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court held that while a custom maybe judicially recognised, a custom evolves by conduct and therefore, its validity cannot solely be measured by its historic judicial recognition. Thus, the Apex Court held that when customs are pleaded at equal parlance with written law, they should be strictly proved by the claimant.

Additionally, the Court held that the burden of proof in cases of adoption is heavy due to the paramount impact it has in familial relations. It discussed the nature of evidence required and held that mere oral evidence is not satisfactory to meet the burden of proof.

IMPACT:

The Supreme Court’s clarification that the validity of a custom cannot rest solely on its judicial recognition has found great²⁴and extensive²⁵applicability²⁶in a plethora²⁷of cases²⁸ by various²⁹benches³⁰in various³¹courts³², including matters of succession³³, inheritance³⁴, property³⁵ and more³⁶. However, its inability to fill the existing vacuum in the Jain Community’s adoption law in Independent India necessitates a major reform of the present legal position.4

¹ Student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune

²Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka vs. Ratanlal, (2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1517)

³ Ratanlal Chunilal Samsuka vs. Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Ors, (2018 11 SCC 119)

⁴Section 2,Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Application of the Act.

⁵Section 3(a),Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Definition and essential ingredients of a custom

⁶Section 10(iii),Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Persons who may be adopted.

⁷Section 10(iv),Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Persons who may be adopted

⁸ Collector of Madura vs. Moottoo Ramalinga Sathupathy, (1868) 12 M.I.A. 397

⁹Sant Ram v. Labh Singh, AIR 1965 SC 314

¹⁰Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 67

¹¹Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors, (2019) 11 SCC 1

¹²Hem Singh and Anr. v. Hakim Singh and Anr, [1955]1SCR44

¹³Laxmibai (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Anr. vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors, (2013) 4 SCC 97

¹⁴Gokal Chand vs. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231.

¹⁵Daya Ram v. Sohel Singh, (1906) 110 PR 390

¹⁶Kishori Lal vs. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504 ¹⁷RahasaPandiani vs. Gokulananda Panda, (1987) 2 SCC 338 ¹⁸ Rup Chand vs. Jambu Parshad, 1910 SCC OnLine PC 5

¹⁹Sheokuarbai vs. Jeoraj, 1920 SCC OnLine PC 54 ²⁰Asharji Kunwar v. Rup Chand, (1908) 30 All 197 ²¹Govindram v. Sheoprasad, (AIR 1948 Nag 398) ²²Manohar Lal vs Banarsi Das, (1907) ILR 29 All 495 ²³Chiman Lal vs Hari Chand, (1913) 15 BOMLR 646

²⁴Roopautin Bai vs. Sunderi Bai and Ors, MANU/CG/0143/2020

²⁵Surjotin and Ors. Vs. Chamrin Bai and Ors, MANU/CG/0066/2020

²⁶Suresh Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Ors, MANU/JH/0459/2020

²⁷Bhim vs. State of Jharkhand, MANU/JH/0260/2020

²⁸Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Ors. vs. Maharani Deepinder Kaur and Ors, MANU/PH/0414/2020

²⁹Bhagwati vs. Cheduram and Ors, 2020(2) CGLJ236

³⁰Crown Transport (P) Ltd. Vs. Alpasso International Engineering Co. and Ors, MANU/WB/2892/2019

³¹V. Sudarshan vs. V. Mohan and Ors, MANU/KA/5390/2019

³²Pusapati Laxmi Narasayamma vs. Alamanda Narayana and Ors, 2018(5) ALT95

³³Jhuli and Ors vs. Patru and Ors, AIR2021Chh60

³⁴Maniyar Sai and Ors. vs. Jangi Bai and Ors., AIR2020Chh183

³⁵A. Rawoof Khan and Ors. vs. Noushad Basha and Ors, MANU/AP/0623/2020

³⁶Ratan Singh vs. Rajaram, AIR2020MP135