Source: Bombay High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Gauri Godse  held that mere registration of an adoption deed does not by itself attract the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).  

• For the presumption to apply, the deed must clearly record the particulars of the adoption and be signed by both the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption. 
• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Nivritti Pandurang Nale v. Uttam Ganu Nale & Anr (2025).

What was the Background of Nivritti Pandurang Nale v. Uttam Ganu Nale & Anr (2025) Case? 

• The case revolves around a property dispute between plaintiffs (sons and wife of one Ganu) and defendant no. 2 (Nivrutti), who claimed to be the adopted son of Pandurang (Ganu's brother) and defendant no. 1 (Pandurang's wife). 
• Gopala had two sons, Ganu and Pandurang. Ganu died on December 25, 1953, while Pandurang died on March 26, 1978. 
• Plaintiff no. 3 was Ganu's wife, and plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 along with defendant no. 2 (Nivrutti) were the biological sons of Ganu and plaintiff no. 3. 
• Defendant no. 2 claimed that Pandurang and defendant no. 1 had adopted him, making him the exclusive heir to Pandurang's property after defendant no. 1's death. 
• The adoption deed relied upon by defendant no. 2 was dated 18th July, 1985, executed by defendant no. 1 after Pandurang's death, stating that the adoption had taken place 25 years prior (around 1960). 
• The trial court accepted defendant no. 2's claim of adoption and dismissed the partition suit filed by the plaintiffs. 
• The first Appellate Court reversed this finding, declaring that plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 and defendant no. 2 each had a 1/4th share in the suit property. 
• Defendant no. 2 filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the first Appellate Court's judgment and seeking recognition as the exclusive heir to the property based on his claimed adoption.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that for a valid adoption, there must be proof of "giving and taking" of the child by the biological parents and adoptive parents respectively, which was lacking in this case. 
• The Court noted that according to the adoption deed, the adoption supposedly took place around 1960, but Ganu (biological father) had died in 1953, making it impossible for him to have given consent for the adoption as claimed in the deed. 
• The Court observed that there was no pleading or proof that the biological mother (plaintiff no. 3) had given defendant no. 2 in adoption, which is an essential ingredient of a valid adoption under Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). 
• The Court held that mere registration of an adoption deed cannot give rise to a presumption under Section 16 of the HAMA, unless the document is signed by both the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption. 
• The Court observed that since the adoption deed was not signed by the biological mother (who was alive at the time), the presumption under Section 16 could not be applied. 
• The Court concluded that the burden to prove valid adoption was on the defendants, which they failed to satisfy, and thus defendant no. 2 could not claim exclusive rights to the property based on adoption. 
• The Court partially modified the first Appellate Court's order, declaring that plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and defendant no. 2 were entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit properties. 

What is Section 16 of the HAMA ? 

• Section 16 of the HAMA creates a rebuttable presumption that an adoption is valid when evidenced by a registered document signed by both the person giving it to and the person taking the child in adoption.  
• This presumption stands unless and until contrary evidence disproves the validity of the adoption. The provision requires dual signatures on the registered document to trigger this legal presumption.  
• The section effectively balances formal documentation with the ability to challenge adoptions through contradictory evidence if necessary.  
• This presumption mechanism helps courts efficiently handle adoption cases while maintaining avenues for addressing potentially improper adoptions.