MOTURU NALINI KANTH VS. GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.)

INTRODUCTION 

A Two-judge Supreme Court bench, issued an order on November 2023 quashing the Trial Court’s decision. The court found that the appellant had not proven the adoption deed’s legality nor demonstrated that the deceased would acknowledge the appellant as his legitimate heir. The case mainly focuses on an essential legal dispute concerning the concept of validity of deed. In this case the respondent Kaliprasad challenged the claim in court. He contested the Will Deed, in which Nalini Kanth claimed rights and the adoption deed as well. Further regarding the section 69 was validated.

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS 

In the present case, the appellant, Nalini Kanth stated that, Venkubayamma(deceased), a 70-year-old woman, adopted him, as evidenced by registered Adoption Deed dated April 20, 1982 and registered the same deed. She has been reported to have adopted him as well. Given that he was born in 1981, the appellant was not even a year old at the time. The appellant further declares that he claimed absolute right and title over the properties of the deceased woman under registered Will Deed dated May 3, 1982. The appellant additionally stated that Venkubayamma had revoked her prior Will Deed, which had been executed on May 26, 1981, in Kaliprasad’s, her grandson. A plea was filed by the appellant, through his guardian since he was minor at the that time, for declaratory and consequential reliefs in respect of the deceased’s properties. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam held the ruling and granted in favour of the appellant vide judgement 1989. However, in appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal petition filed by the respondent Kaliprasad and rendered a decision against the appellant vide a judgement in 2006. After that, a second appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by the appellant. 

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the appellant is the adopted son of Venkubayamma and the Adoption Deed dated 19.04.1982 is legitimate?

2. Whether the registered Will dated 03.05.1982 executed by late Venkubayamma is genuine and enforceable?

3. Whether the appellant is entitled to the possession of the suit properties?

4. To what relief?

CONTENTION BY APPELLANT 

Nalini Kanth, a plaintiff, was examined by his guardian, Kaliprasad, who did not provide any documentary evidence. The Guardian claimed that Venkubayamma extended an invitation to the adoption ceremony at Raghunadha Swamy Temple in Berhampur. Panduranga Rao, the natural father, claimed that he and his wife gave their second son, Nalini Kanth, in adoption to her. an attesting witness and the document-writer, claimed to know Venkubayamma for 5-6 years and were persuaded to sign the document. 

CONTENTION BY RESPONDENT 

The document cannot be considered genuine due to Kaliprasad being the sole legatee and the suspicious circumstances surrounding Will. The document was executed in 1982, and the adoption ceremony was performed by Venkubayamma, who was in her 70s. The funeral rites were performed by Kaliprasad.

JUDGEMENT RENDERED

the Apex Court made the following observations By Order dated November 20, 2023 The Supreme Court noted that the execution of an unprivileged will is not automatically validated by mere registration; rather, the Will must still be proven in accordance with the legal requirements outlined in Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deal with the cases where there is no witness to attest to the execution of a document. 

The Supreme Court also ruled that the adoption deed stated the deceased Venkubayamma’s age as seventy years old and that, since she had no male children, she wished to adopt a male child. According to the adoption deed itself, the adoptive mother was 70 years old, while the appellant, Nalini Kanth, was less than a year old. It is odd that the Deceased-Venkubayamma would have expected this toddler to carry out her funeral rites and other rituals for her and her ancestors at that age. In addition, it is hard to imagine that a woman so far along in life would voluntarily take on the care of a child that young.

In light of the aforementioned issue, “The scribe’s evidence of the disputed Will also raises questions about the identity of the executant because he explicitly mentioned that he was unable to determine whether the woman seated at a distance was Venkubayamma or if she had signed the document. In reality, Will was not legally proved, so it cannot have any legal consequences. Because of this, Nalini Kanth’s claims of absolute ownership and right over Venkubayamma’s properties is unsupportable and likely to be dismissed. The Court stated that a number of doubtful events related to the 1982 adoption ceremony take significance in the matter.

Nalini Kanth is therefore not entitled to any ownership interest or rights in Venkubayamma’s properties. Therefore, interference is not warranted with the High Court’s findings, even though they were made for entirely different reasons.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court ruled that strict adherence to Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary when demonstrating the veracity of a will in the absence of attesting witnesses. The Court highlighted that it is not sufficient to prove a will under Section 69 by depending only on a random witness who claims that they have observed the attesting witness’s signing it. Rather, specific evidence is required. The claim was also rejected due to discrepancies in the adoption procedure and questions regarding the validity of the will. Section 69 of the Evidence Act addresses the issue, when no witnesses are found to attest to a document’s authenticity.

RELATED CASE LAWS 

• Ramesh Verma (Dead) through LRs. vs. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by LRs. and another, this Court observed that a Will, like any other document, is to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act.
• Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, propounder of a Will must prove its signature by a sound and disposing testator, understanding its nature and effect. The document cannot be used as evidence until one attesting witness is called, as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
• Govinda vs. Chimabai and others, A registered adoption deed does not prove adoption, according to the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court. Oral testimony and appropriate ceremonies that comply with Shastra law are required to establish the factum of adoption.
• Ved Mitra Verma vs. Dharam Deo Verma, the Court ruled that the Sub-Registrar’s examination, despite the death of the attesting witnesses, was sufficient to prove the Will under Section 69 of the Evidence Act.

CONCLUSION 

The Apex Court determined that there is insufficient evidence to support the Deceased’s adoption of the Appellant, after carefully examining the case’s facts and circumstances and applying the aforementioned legal principles. By adoption, the appellant cannot be regarded as her heir. Furthermore, the will which was not proved legally, was also not concluded. As a result, the appellant has no right or interest in the deceased’s belongings. The ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was sustained by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. https://theindianlawyer.in/ 

“ THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY R.S.KANIMOZHI STUDENT OF SATHYABAMA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – SCHOOL OF LAW, CHENNAI; INTERN AT LEGAL VIDHIYA.”

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin