DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY SABBAVARAM,

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
CASE – ANALYSIS - CHANDAN BILASINI Vs AFTABUDDIN

SUBJECT
FAMILY LAW-1

NAME OF THE FACULTY

DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN

NAME OF THE STUDENT

UMA SHANKAR MISHRA

ROLL NO.
18LLB091

SEMESTER
3

Page 1 of 16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am highly indebted to my Hon’ble Prof. Dr.S. Radhakrishna, for giving me a wonderful
opportunity to work on the case: Chandan Bilasini Vs Aftabuddin Khan. for CASE
ANALYSIS and it is because of his excellent knowledge, experience and guidance, this
project is made with great interest and effort. I would also like to thank my seniors who have
guided my novice knowledge of doing research on such significant topic. I would also take
this as an opportunity to thank my parents for their support at all times. I have no words to
express my gratitude to each and every person who have guided and suggested me while
conducting my research work.

Page 2 of 16
CONTENTS
1) Synopsis 4-10

2) Related Acts 7-10

3) Statement of Facts 11-12

4) Arguments Advanced 13-14

5) Judgement of High Court 15

6) Judgement of Supreme Court 16

Page 3 of 16
SYNOPSIS

NAME - CHANDAN BILASINI VS AFTABUDDIN KHAN (AIR 1996 SC 591)

PETITIONER- Chandan Bilasini

RESPONDENT– Aftab Uddin Khan

BENCH- Justice Sujata V. Manohar, Justice M.M. Punchhi

ACTS REFERRED

Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 Section 12, 14

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 s. 16

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Indian Succession Act, 1925

Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 art. 58

Specific Relief Act, 1963

CASES REFERRED - Chief Inspector of Mines v. K. C. Thapar AIR 1961 SC 838

Banwarilal v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 849.

Satyanarain Biswanath v. Harakchand Rupchand AIR 1955 Cal 225

Kali Prashad Gope v. Ram Golam Sahu, AIR 1937 Pat 16

 Prashad Gone v. Ram Golam Sahu, AIR 1937 Pat 163

Headnote - Family & Personal - Hindu Adoptions Maintenance Act, 1956 - Some other
persons who were present at adoption ceremony were not examined - Whether it can consider
as making adoption doubtful? - Held, adoption took place by ceremony of giving and taking -
Adoption valid - Appeal disposed of.

Facts - Chandan Bilasini Dasi was married to one Kalikrishna Sarkar who died on
11.12.1905 leaving a will under which, inter alia, he had authorised his widow, the original

Page 4 of 16
plaintiff No. 1 to adopt a son and in the event of the adopted son's death to adopt a second
son. The adoption had to be made with the consent of the executors. Accordingly, the first-
plaintiff had adopted one Sudhanshu Mohan Sarkar as per the directions contained in the Will
of Kalikrishna. Sudhanshu Mohan Sarkar died in an unmarried state on 7.3.65. Thereafter she
adopted the said respondent Amaresh Sarkar on 24.8.65. By this time all the executors were
dead. She also executed a registered deed acknowledging the adoption of Amaresh Sarkar
which is dated 30.9.65. This deed, however, was not counter-signed by the natural parents of
the adopted child. The natural father executed a deed acknowledging adoption which is dated
15.4.67. This deed is also registered. Apart from these documents, evidence was led in order
to prove the ceremony of giving and taking in adoption. It is necessary to bear in mind that
this second adoption took place after coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and
maintenance Act, 1956 under which the first- plaintiff Chandan Bilasini Das being a widow
was entitled to adopt a son even otherwise than under the authority given to her under the
Will of her deceased husband. PWs 1, 2 and 6 have given oral evidence relating to the
adoption ceremony. PW1, who is the natural father of the adopted son has given evidence to
the effect that the adoption took place on 24.8.65 and the ceremony of giving and taking in
adoption was performed. A priest was also present and Pooja Homa, were performed. PW2 is
the priest who performed the adoption ceremony and PW6 is an attesting witness to the deed
of adoption which was executed by the adoptive mother on 30.9.65. He was also present at
the time of the adoption ceremony. On adoption of the respondent Amaresh Sarkar by the
widow of the deceased Kalikrishna Sarkar, the adopted son Amaresh Sarkar severed his ties
with his natural family and became a part of the adoptive family. The question here is
whether the Adoption is Valid under Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956. The High
court ruled that Amaresh Sarkar was not adopted by Chandan Bilasini and in accordance with
provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956.

QUESTION OF LAW

Whether the Adoption of by is Valid and satisfying all the Criteria’s as laid down under Hindu
adoption and Maintenance Act,1956?

Whether the suit is barred by limitation Act?

Contentions of Plaintiffs- Mr. Mahapatra

 Mr. Mahapatra for the Plaintiff however, strenuously pressed before us that even if in the
plaint in support of the adoption the statutory presumption had not been invoked, as after the

Page 5 of 16
Act all adoptions had to be in terms of the statute, if we found that the requirement of Section
16 of the Act had been satisfied, we must give effect to the statutory presumption He said
there suit is not barred by Section 32 of Specific Relief Act, 1963

Cases referred by plaintiffs

Chief Inspector of Mines v. K. C. Thapar AIR 1961 SC 838

Banwarilal v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 849.

Satyanarain Biswanath v. Harakchand Rupchand AIR 1955 Cal 225

Contentions of Defendants by – Advocate. Mr. Dutta

1) Under the Will (Ext. 11) Chandan Bilasini had not been given a life estate and as a
residuary legatee she derived the full estate;

(2) The learned Single Judge has gone wrong in holding that Section 307 of the Indian
Succession Act read with Section 211 thereof had no application to the case;

(3) The suit with a mere declaratory relief when the plaintiffs were out of possession was not
maintainable and, therefore, the suit had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court and the
learned Single Judge was not entitled to fill up the lacuna by decreeing the relief of recovery
of possession even without amendment of the plaint and suit was barred under section 32 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(4 The suit was barred by limitation as it had been brought beyond three years from the date
of execution of the sale deed;

(5) Adoption of plaintiff No. 2 having not been established, on the death of plaintiff No. 1, he
was not entitled to maintain the appeal and the litigation should have been declared to have
abated.

6)   If there was any defect in the title of the alienor, when Sudhanshu, the first adopted son in
whom the property was to vest absolutely died, the entire residuary interest vested in the
widow and the widow became a full owner. Any defect of title in 1961', when the sale was
affected under Ext. A, was wiped out by the time of suit and plaintiff No. 1, the vendor was
estopped from challenging her own transaction

Page 6 of 16
Cases in support of defendants

Kali Prashad Gope v. Ram Golam Sahu, AIR 1937 Pat 16

 Prashad Gone v. Ram Golam Sahu, AIR 1937 Pat 163

Judgement of High Court -The Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, however, held
that there was no valid adoption. It appears to have drawn an adverse inference on the basis
of the fact that the adoptive mother who was alive at the time when the evidence was
recorded by the trial court, had not examined herself. It is accepted by both sides that at the
time when the evidence was recorded the adoptive mother was a very old lady 86 years. As
mother has not been examined it Violates Section 14 Of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act.

Judgement Of Supreme Court -The Division Bench failed to take into account the fact that
there were three other witnesses who were present at the time of the adoption ceremony who
were examined -- one of them being the priest and the other one being a person who was also
present at the time when the deed of admission of adoption was executed. The mere fact that
some other persons who were also present at the adoption ceremony were not examined,
cannot be considered as making the adoption doubtful. Looking to the entire evidence which
is on record which goes to establish that adoption took place by the ceremony of giving and
taking, we hold that there was a valid adoption of the respondent Amaresh Sarkar by the
original first-plaintiff Chandan Bilasini Dasi. After the coming into force of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act  of 1956, this adoption was made in accordance with the
provisions of Hindu Adoptions and  Maintenance Act

CASE ANALYSIS-

RELATED ACTS

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Page 7 of 16
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) was enacted in India in 1956 as part
of the Hindu Code Bills. The other legislations enacted during this time include the Hindu
Marriage Act (1955), the Hindu Succession Act (1956), and the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act (1956). All of these acts were put forth under the leadership of Jawaharlal
Nehru, and were meant to codify and standardize the current Hindu legal tradition. The
Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 dealt specifically with the legal process
of adopting children by a Hindu adult, and with the legal obligations of a Hindu to provide
"maintenance" to various family members including their wife or wives, parents, and in-laws.

RELATED SECTIONS

Section 12. Effects of adoption. —An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his
or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and
from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be
severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family: Provided that—

(a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had
continued in the family of his or her birth;

(b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest
in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property,
including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth;

(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her
before the adoption

Section 14. Determination of adoptive mother in certain cases.—

(1) Where a Hindu who has a wife living adopts a child, she shall be deemed to be the
adoptive mother.

(2) Where an adoption has been made with the consent of more than one wife, the senior
most in marriage among them shall be deemed to be the adoptive mother and the others to be
step-mothers.

(3) Where a widower or a bachelor adopts a child, any wife whom he subsequently marries
shall be deemed to be the step-mother of the adopted child.

Page 8 of 16
(4) Where a widow or an unmarried woman adopts a child, any husband whom she marries
subsequently shall be deemed to be the step-father of the adopted child.

Section 16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption

Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced
before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving
and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been
made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.

Indian Succession Act,1925

The Act is known as Indian Succession Act, 1925. Act was enacted on 30th September, 1925.
Basic purpose of enacting this act was to make different rules which will be applicable to
person who make will before dying and to those who do not prepare will before dying and
thereon. For the purpose of this act, “administration means, a person who is appointed by
capable authority who can manage property of departed person when there is no officer who
execute it”, “codicil is, such instrument which is made with respect to will, for adding,
altering, of explaining any term or any portion of will”, “executor is a person who execute
will of a deceased person”, “will is legal declaration of intention of testator in relation to his
property which he desire to be carried with effect after his death”, “probate means an another
copy of will which is certified with seal of court of having jurisdiction of doing so with grant
of administration to estate of testator”

Sections 302. Directions to executor or administrator.—Where probate or letters of

administration in respect of any estate has or have been granted under this Act, the High
Court may, on application made to it, give to the executor or administrator any general or
special directions in regard to the estate or in regard to the administration thereof.

307. Power of executor or administrator to dispose of property. —

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), an executor or administrator has power to
dispose of the property of the deceased, vested in him under section 211, either wholly or in
part, in such manner as he may think fit. Illustrations

(I) The deceased has made a specific bequest of part of his property. The executor, not having
assented to the bequest, sells the subject of it. The sale is valid.

Page 9 of 16
(ii) The executor in the exercise of his discretion mortgages a part of the immovable estate of
the deceased. The mortgage is valid.

(2) If the deceased was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain or an exempted
person, the general power conferred by sub-section (1) shall be subject to the following
restrictions and conditions, namely:— (i) The power of an executor to dispose of immovable
property so vested in him is subject to any restriction which may be imposed in this behalf by
the Will appointing him, unless probate has been granted to him and the Court which granted
the probate permits him by an order in writing, notwithstanding the restriction, to dispose of
any immovable property specified in the order in a manner permitted by the order.

(ii) An administrator may not, without the previous permission of the Court by which the
letters of administration were granted, —

(a) mortgage, charge or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any immovable property
for the time being vested in him under section 211, or (b) lease any such property for a term
exceeding five years.

(iii) A disposal of property by an executor or administrator in contravention of clause (i) or

clause (ii), as the case may be, is voidable at the instance of any other person interested in the
property.

(3) Before any probate or letters of administration is or are granted in such a case, there shall
be endorsed thereon or annexed thereto a copy of sub-section (1) and clauses (i) and (iii) of
sub-section (2) or of sub-section (1) and clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2), as the case
may be.

(4) A probate or letters of administration shall not be rendered invalid by reason of the
endorsement or annexure required by sub-section (3) not having been made thereon or
attached thereto, nor shall the absence of such an endorsement or annexure authorise an
executor or administrator to act otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this
section.

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was basically brought into effect to meet those situations only
where there is no will made by Hindu male or female dying before making the will and hence
it has no application in case of testamentary succession that is in case where there is a

Page 10 of 16
will. The need of this act is felt in today’s world because of the growing issue of family
separations and family related disputes amongst the members. This act applies to both
Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools. This act applies only in the case intestate succession by
Hindus including Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhist and to any person who is not a Muslim,
Christian, Parsi or a Jew and to any person who becomes a Hindu by conversion. It is also
applicable to the children of above categories whether legitimate or illegitimate. This act lays
down separate rules for succession of males and females. This act will work in order of
succession through which the heirs of the person dying gets the property.

CASE ANALYSIS- CHANDAN BILASINI Vs AFTABUDDIN

KHAN

"CASE NAME - CHANDAN BILASINI Vs AFTABUDDIN KHAN

"CITATION: AIR 1996 SC 591

"PETITIONER: CHANDAN BILASINI

"RESPONDENT: CHANDAN BILASINI

ACTS- Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 Section 12, 14

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 s. 16
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Indian Succession Act, 1925
Limitation Act, 1963
Limitation Act, 1963 art. 58
Specific Relief Act, 1963
STATEMENT OF FACTS

There lived in the town of Cuttack a Kali Krishna Sarkar with considerable property. He died
immediately after executing a Will on 11-12-1905 (Ext 11) in terms of giving some of his
property to his mother adding other relatives, some to the family deity Sri Radha Binoda Jew
and the rest of the properties were intended to go to his wife Chandan Bilasini (appellant No.
1). Five executors named by the Will were to administer the property and had to pay the
mesne income to her after meeting the administration expenses. The testament strictly limited
the wife's isolation, but allowed her to take up a son and, if the first adopted son died too take

Page 11 of 16
another with the approval of the executors. The Will was probated in a proceeding of 1906
and while the executors were in management of the estate of the deceased, plaintiff No. 1
adopted one Sudhanshu Mohan Sarkar. The adoptive mother and, the adopted son did not pull
on well and their relationship became embittered. Late in 1930's, both the widow and the
adopted son started claiming possession of the estate which led to a proceeding before the
Patna High Court under Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act. The attempt made by the
adopted son failed (AIR 1940 Pat 194, (Sudhanshu Mohan v. Harish Chandra)). Plaintiff No.
1 applied to the District Judge for grant of letters of administration in her favour and the
adopted son contested the same. The Court allowed the application of the widow on 21-8-
1944. On 31st of July, 1961, plaintiff No. 1 sold a pucca building with outhouses in favour of
the predecessors of the defendants for a consideration of Rs. 55,000/- (Ext. A). On 7th of
March, 1955, Sudhanshu Mohan died while still a bachelor. On 24-8-1965, the widow
adopted plaintiff No. 2 and on 30th of September, 1965, she executed a registered deed of
acknowledgment of adoption (Ext. 4). On 29-4-1966, the widow and her second adopted son
as plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed this suit for declaration that the sale under Ext. A was null and void
and not binding on them and the defendants have not acquired any right, title or interest in the
disputed property by virtue of the said conveyance on the allegation that from 1951, plaintiff
No. 1 had been suffering from old age and she had lost the power of understanding;
Sailendra, a sister's son, who was managing the properties on her behalf took advantage of
the situation, completely dominated the Will of the widow and was abusing his position and
the document under Ext. A was one of the several alienations manipulated by Sailendra. It
was further alleged that plaintiff No. 1 had no right of alienation and, therefore, the
conveyance could confer no title on the alienees. Plaintiffs alleged that they were still in
possession. When plaintiff No. 1 recovered from her illness some time in 1965, she came to
learn about the fraud practised on her by Sailendra and, filed a case against her. It is
necessary to bear in mind that this second adoption took place after coming into force of the
Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 under which the first- plaintiff Chandan
Bilasini Das being a widow was entitled to adopt a son even otherwise than under the
authority given to her under the Will of her deceased husband. PWs 1, 2 and 6 have given
oral evidence relating to the adoption ceremony. PW1, who is the natural father of the
adopted son has given evidence to the effect that the adoption took place on 24.8.65 and the
ceremony of giving and taking in adoption was performed. A priest was also present and
Kalasha Pooja Homa, were performed. PW2 is the priest who performed the adoption

Page 12 of 16
ceremony and PW6 is an attesting witness to the deed of adoption which was executed by the
adoptive mother on 30.9.65. He was also present at the time of the adoption ceremony.

ISSUES RAISED
1) Whether the Adoption of Amaresh Sarkar by Chandan Bilasini is Valid and satisfying all
the Criteria as laid down under Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act,1956?

2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation Act?

ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF – REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE – MR.

MAHAPATRA
Mr. Mahapatra stressed on the satisfied except that the deed of acknowledgment of adoption
(Doc. 1) was not signed by the natural parents of the second plaintiff. To obviate this
difficulty, a registered deed of admission of adoption (Doc.2) has been executed on 15-4-
1967 by the natural parents of the second plaintiff. On the basis Doc.1 and Doc. 2 Mr.
Mahapatra contends that the requirement of Section 16 that the document must be signed by
both the giver and the taker of the child in adoption is satisfied. In Section 16, the relevant
words are 'any document'. According to counsel for the respondent, any document may cover
one or more documents and for this purpose he has relied upon some authorities. Mr.
Mahapatra referred the cases of Satyanarain Biswanath v. Harakchand Rupchand1,, the
word 'any' in Rule 10 of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce Rules of Tribunal of Arbitration
was being construed and the Court held that the word takes within its ambit one or more out
of several and includes all. In the case of Chief Inspector of Mines v. K. C. Thapar 2, the
phrase 'any one of the directors' occurring in the Mines Act was being construed and the
Court held that any one of the directors meant every one of the directors. To the same effect
was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banwarilal v. State of Bihar3, On this
principle, Mr. Mahapatra claims that any would take within its fold more than one and,
therefore, if the adoptive parent and the natural parents signed two separate documents for the
same purpose, the requirement of Section 16 of the Adoption Act was satisfied. Mr.
Mahapatra for the Plaintiff however, strenuously pressed before us that even if in the plaint

1
AIR 1955 Cal 225
2
AIR 1961 SC 838
3
AIR 1961 SC 849.

Page 13 of 16
in support of the adoption the statutory presumption had not been invoked, as after the Act all
adoptions had to be in terms of the statute, if we found that the requirement of Section 16 of
the Act had been satisfied, we must give effect to the statutory presumption

He also said that said there suit is not barred by Limitation Act , 1963 as According to the
plaintiffs, the appropriate Article to apply was Article 59 of the First Schedule where the
prescribed period is three years and limitation runs from the date when the facts entitling the
plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled first become known to him

ARGUMENTS FOR DEFENDANTS

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS – MR. DUTTA

Mr. Dutta for the appellants raised the following contentions: --
(1) Under the Will (Ext. 11) Chandan Bilasini had not been given a life estate and as a
residuary legatee she derived the full, estate.
(2) The learned Single Judge has gone wrong in holding that Section 307 of the Indian
Succession Act read with Section 211 thereof had no application to the case;
(3) Even if at the time of alienation there was any defect in the title of the alienor widow, she
having become a full owner, the alienation bound her and she was estopped from challenging
it;
(4) The suit with a mere declaratory relief when the plaintiffs were out of possession was not
maintainable and, therefore, the suit had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court and the
learned Single Judge was not entitled to fill up the lacuna by decreeing the relief of recovery
of possession even without amendment of the plaint;
(5) The suit was barred by limitation as it had been brought beyond three years from the date
of execution of the sale deed;
(6) Adoption of plaintiff No. 2 having not been established, on the death of plaintiff No. 1, he
was not entitled to maintain the appeal and the litigation should have been declared to have
abated.
7)He also contended that even if there was any defect in the title of the alienor, when
Sudhanshu, the first adopted son in whom the property was to vest absolutely died, the entire
residuary interest vested in the widow and the widow became a full owner. Any defect of title
in 1961', when the sale was affected under Doc.1, was wiped out by the time of suit and
plaintiff No. 1, the vendor was estopped from challenging her own transaction. The doctrine
of feeding the estoppel was invoked as the foundation for this argument

Page 14 of 16
8) Mr. Dutta also contended that the Suit is barred by limitation as the sale deed (Ext. Doc.
A) is dated 10-10-1961. The suit was instituted on 29-4-1966 -- after a period of three years.
They claim that the appropriate Article to apply is Article 58 and the three-year period runs
from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT

The Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, agreed with Contentions of Mr. Dutta held
that there was no valid adoption. It appears to have drawn an adverse inference on the basis
of the fact that the adoptive mother who was alive at the time when the evidence was
recorded by the trial court, had not examined herself. It is accepted by both sides that at the
time when the evidence was recorded the adoptive mother was a very old lady 86 years. As
mother has not been examined it Violates Section 14 Of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act.

The High Court agreed with the Contentions of Mr. Mahapatra related to Limitation Act,
1963 and said that , the appropriate Article to apply is Article 59 and there is material; to
show that the plaintiff No. 1 was not aware of the real effect of the transaction under Ext. A
until she discovered facts on getting cured. In these circumstances, we would not agree with
the contention of Mr. Dutta that the suit was barred by limitation.

JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT

The Division Bench of the High Court appears to have drawn an adverse inference on the
basis of the fact that the adoptive mother who was alive at the time when the evidence was
recorded by the trial court, had not examined herself. It is accepted by both sides that at the
time when the evidence was recorded the adoptive mother was a very old lady 86 years of
age and she was too old to be produced in court for giving evidence. and it failed to take into
account the fact that there were three other witnesses who were present at the time of the
adoption ceremony who were examined -- one of them being the priest and the other one
being a person who was also present at the time when the deed of admission of adoption was
executed. The mere fact that some other persons who were also present at the adoption
ceremony were not examined, cannot be considered as making the adoption It is also a fact
that Amaresh Sarkar after being adopted by the widow of the deceased Kalikrishna Sarkar,

Page 15 of 16
severed his ties with his natural family and became a part of the adoptive family. As such,
Chandan Bilasini Dasi became his mother and Balakrishna became his deceased father.
Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act clearly provides that an adopted
child shall be deemed to be the child of his adoptive father or mother for all purposes with
effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all ties of the child in the family of his
or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in
the adoptive family. As a consequence, when a widow adopts a child, the child not merely
acquires an adoptive mother but also acquires other relationships in the adoptive family,
unless there is anything to the contrary in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Looking to the entire evidence which is on record which goes to establish that adoption took
place by the ceremony of giving and taking, we hold that there was a valid adoption of the
respondent Amaresh Sarkar by the original first-plaintiff Chandan Bilasini Dasi. After the
coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956, this adoption was
made in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and  Maintenance Act. This
position is reinforced by Section 14(4) which sets out that where a widow or an unmarried
woman adopts a child, any husband whom she marries subsequently shall be deemed to be
the step-father of the adopted child. In other words, the family relationship gets crystallised as
at the date of adoption. The child will be deemed to be the child of the parent who adopts the
child and the existing or deceased spouse of that parent (as the case may be), if any, will be
considered the child's father or mother. A spouse subsequently acquired by the adoptive
parent becomes the step-parent of the adopted child. The adopted child, however, cannot
divest any person of any property already vested in that person (Section 12[c]). we set aside
the impugned judgment in so far as it holds that Amaresh Sarkar was not the validly adopted
son of Chandan Bilasini Dasi and Kalikrishna Sarkar and also state that respondents will pay
rupees five lakhs to the appellant in full and final settlement of all his claims against the
respondents. The respondents have requested for some time for making payment of this
amount. We direct that 50% of the amount will be paid on or before 30th of November, 1995
and the balance amount will be paid on or before 31st of March, 1996.

Page 16 of 16