# VOLETI VENKATARAMA RAO v. KESAPRAGADA BRAS.KARA RAO & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 301
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-04-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 757 of 1963
- **Bench:** S. M. Suau, R. s. BACHAWAT, v. RAMASWAMI
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/voleti-venkatarama-rao-v-kesapragada-bras-kara-rao-ors-4759
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Hindu laY.~A.doption-Challenge to adoption after a long lapse of
years-Presumption as to validity.
One B, a Brahmin Karnam, executed a will in 1903
authorising his
widow to adopt. After bis death, the widow adopted R in 1904. The
first respondent was R's adopted son.
R died in 1950, end his adoptive
mother died in 1952. During his lifetime, R was recognised by evezy
member of the family as the adopted son elf B, and he was registered as
the Karnam and he acted as the Karnam till his death.
In 1953, the
appellant, claiming to be the nearest heir of B filed a suit for recovery of
possession of B's property contending that R's adoption was invalid, b&-
csuse, the a4optive mother had not attained the age of discretion at the
time of the lldoption and was therefore not competent to make the adoption. The shit was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : Where there is a lapse elf several years between the adoptiOn
and its being questioned, the
burden rests heavily upon him who
challenges it, and every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove it
must be favourably entertained. [303 D-E]
In the rresent case, having regirrd to the long lapse of time, the recognition o R as, the adopted son of B, and the fact that those who could
have given evidence in favour of the adoption had passed away, a strong
presumption in favour of the validity of adoption should be drawii. The
al'l'ellant made no attempt to produce the certified copy of the register of
bil:tlu which would have shown the exact age of the mother and thus failed ,to rebut the presumption. [303 C-D; F]
Venkataseetaramil Chandra Row v. Kanchu Marthi Raju A.LR. 1925
P.C. 201 applied.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 757 of
1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgnient and decree dated
November 29, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal
No. 261 of 1956.
M. C .Chag/a, R. Thiagarajan, and T. Satyanarayana, f.or the
appellant.
Suryanarayana,nurthy and K. Jayaram, for respondents Nos.
l, 4 to 6, 9 to fl, 13, 17, 25, 26, 29, 39, 42, 45, 47, 55 to 57,
59, 63 and 64.
H

## Text

A
B
c
D
F
G
VOLETI VENKATARAMA RAO
v.
KESAPRAGADA BRAS.KARA RAO & ORS.
April 15, 1969
[S. M. Suau, R. s. BACHAWAT AND v. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Hindu laY.~A.doption-Challenge to adoption after a long lapse of
years-Presumption as to validity.
One B, a Brahmin Karnam, executed a will in 1903
authorising his
widow to adopt. After bis death, the widow adopted R in 1904. The
first respondent was R's adopted son.
R died in 1950, end his adoptive
mother died in 1952. During his lifetime, R was recognised by evezy
member of the family as the adopted son elf B, and he was registered as
the Karnam and he acted as the Karnam till his death.
In 1953, the
appellant, claiming to be the nearest heir of B filed a suit for recovery of
possession of B's property contending that R's adoption was invalid, b&-
csuse, the a4optive mother had not attained the age of discretion at the
time of the lldoption and was therefore not competent to make the adoption. The shit was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : Where there is a lapse elf several years between the adoptiOn
and its being questioned, the
burden rests heavily upon him who
challenges it, and every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove it
must be favourably entertained. [303 D-E]
In the rresent case, having regirrd to the long lapse of time, the recognition o R as, the adopted son of B, and the fact that those who could
have given evidence in favour of the adoption had passed away, a strong
presumption in favour of the validity of adoption should be drawii. The
al'l'ellant made no attempt to produce the certified copy of the register of
bil:tlu which would have shown the exact age of the mother and thus failed ,to rebut the presumption. [303 C-D; F]
Venkataseetaramil Chandra Row v. Kanchu Marthi Raju A.LR. 1925
P.C. 201 applied.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 757 of
1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgnient and decree dated
November 29, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal
No. 261 of 1956.
M. C .Chag/a, R. Thiagarajan, and T. Satyanarayana, f.or the
appellant.
Suryanarayana,nurthy and K. Jayaram, for respondents Nos.
l, 4 to 6, 9 to fl, 13, 17, 25, 26, 29, 39, 42, 45, 47, 55 to 57,
59, 63 and 64.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bacbawat, J.
This dispute refates to the succes8ion to the immoveable properties of late Bhaskara Rao, a Brahmin karnam,
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] I S CR.
who died on November 29, 1903 without issue, but leaving a
widow.
The suit was instituted on April 15, 1953 by the appellant claiming to be the nearest heir of Bhaskara Rao for recovery
of possession of the properties. The case of the contesting defendants is that Bhaskara Rao executed a will on November 29, 1903
authcrising his widow Scshamma to adopt a son, that pursuant to
such authority she adopted Rajeswararao in or about May 1904
that Rajeswararao died in l 950 and that the first defendant is his
adopted son.
The courts below concurrently found in favour of
the defendants on all the points.
They held that ( 1 ) Bhaskara
Rao duly executed •he will dated November 29, 1903; (2) his
widow Seshamma in fact adopted Rajeswararao in or about May
1904 and the requisite ceremonies of adoption were performed.
These findings of fact are no longer challenged.
The trial court held that at the time of adoption Seshamma
was about 14 years of age.
The High Court held that having
regard to the lapse of time there was a strong presumption that
Seshamma had attained the usual age of discretion at the time of
the adoption, that the presumption had not been rebutted and that
the adoption was valid.
Mr. M. C. Chagla argued that in May 1904 Seshamma had
not attained the age of discretion and was not competent to make
the adoption.
He relied on the followi.ng passage in MuNa's
Principles of Hindu Law. 13th ed. art. 465, page 491 :-
"A minor widow may adopt in the same circumstances as an adult widow, provided she has attained the
age of discretion and is able to form an indepep.<lent
judgment in selecting the boy to be adopted.
According to Bengal writers the age of discretion is reached at
the beginning of the sixteenth year; according to Benaras
writers, at the end of the sixteenth year.
The former
view was taken in a recent Madras case."
Now there is no clear evidence on the question of Seshamma's
age in May 1904.
The plaint said that she was then 10 years of
age.
One of the written statements said that she was about 15
years old.
Exhibit A-2 an extract from the register o( deaths
suggests that she was then aged about 14 years. In Ex. A-7 dated
March 25, 1907, Ex. B-5 dated May 2, 1907, Ex. B-110 dated
April 25, 1909, Ex. B-7, dated November I. 191 l, Ex. B-22 dated
November 15, 1911, Exs. A-I 1 and A-12 dated November 17,
1911, she was described as a minor.
But Ex. B-138 dated August
9, 1910 described her as a major.
The evidence of DW 2 sugj!CSts that she was about 15 years old at the time of adoption.
The evidence of DW 3 fixes her age at about 17 years in or about
1903. Evidence was adduced to show that she married 1n· 1898
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
v. v. RAO v. K. B. RAO (Bachawat, /.)
303
when she was 11 or 12 years old.
The ·appellant made no attempt
to produce the certified copy of the register of births which would
have shown her exact age. The adoption was made in May 1904.
It was challenged in 195 3 after a lapse of about 50 years.
The
long delay in filing the suit is not satisfactorily expl~ined. A declaratory suit challenging the adoption could have been filed soon
after the adoption.
Rajeswara Rao died in 1950, Seshamma died
on October 2, 1952.
During his life time Rajeswararao was recognised by every meniber of the family as the adopted son of
Bhaskara Rao.
He was registered as kamam and ?cted as such
till his death.
Under Ex. B-12 dated November 19, 1937 the
plaintiff's mother Kamappa purchased a property from Rajeswara
Rao wherein he was described as the adopted son of Bhaskara
Rao.
Having regard to the Jong lapse of time ain'd the recognition
of Rajeswararao as the adopted son of Bhaskara Rao, the strongest
presumption arises in favour of the validity of the adoption.
The
law on this point is correctly stated in Mulla's Hindu Law, 13th
ed., art. 512, page 519:-
"But when there is a lapse of 55 years between the
adoption and its being questioned, every allowlllll.ce for
the absence of evidence to prove such fact· must be
favourably entertained. It stands to reason that after a
very long term of years, and a variety of transactions of
open life and conduct UpQ!l the footing that the adoption was a valid act, the burden must rest heavily upon
him who challenges its validity," See also Venkataseetarama Chandra Row v. Kanchu Marthi Raju(').
The presumption in this case is very heavy considering that all the
parties to the adoption and all those who could have given evidence in favour of its validity have passed away.
The
appellant has not rebutted this presumption and has not shown
that Sashamma did not attain the age of discretion in May 1904
and was not competent to make the adoption. The courts below
rightly found in favour of the factum and validity of the adoptioo.
There is no merit in this appeal.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(I) A.l.R 1925 P.C. 201, 202.