Moreover, the adoption itself was thrown into doubt on account of various discrepancies.
The top court emphasised that an actual act of “giving and taking” of the child in adoption is an essential requisite under Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which did not take place in this case.
“We find that there is no convincing evidence of that ‘act’ also in the case on hand. Interestingly, there are no pictures of the actual ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption,” Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court concluded that the very adoption itself was not believable and that Nalini Kanth could not, therefore, be treated as the testator’s heir by adoption.
The apex court also found it strange that the testator expected Kanth to perform her funeral rites, given that Kanth was a toddler when the testator passed away.
“It is difficult to believe that a woman of such advanced years would willingly take on the responsibility of caring for an infant at that age,” the Court further noted.
All of these factors ultimately led the top court to dismiss Kanth’s claim to the woman’s property.
Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s order upheld.
Source: Barandbench
