- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Voleti Venkatarama Rao v. Kesapragada Bhaskara Rao And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Bhaskara Rao, a Brahmin Karnam, died on 29 November 1903 leaving a widow, Seshamma, and no children. On the same day, he is said to have executed a will authorising Seshamma to adopt a son. In or about May 1904, Seshamma purportedly adopted Rajeswara Rao, who was thereafter recognised by the family and local authorities as Bhaskara Rao’s adopted son until his death in 1950. The present suit was instituted on 15 April 1953 by the appellant, claiming to be the nearest heir and seeking possession of Bhaskara Rao’s immovable properties. Both the trial court and the High Court upheld the defendants’ position that the adoption was valid. The current opinion resolves the appellant’s further challenge.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Seshamma, the widow of Bhaskara Rao, had attained the requisite “age of discretion” in May 1904 to make a valid adoption of Rajeswara Rao.
- Consequently, whether the adoption of Rajeswara Rao was valid, thereby defeating the appellant’s claim to succeed to Bhaskara Rao’s property.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Seshamma was a minor in May 1904 and had not reached the “age of discretion,” rendering the adoption legally incompetent.
- Reliance was placed on Mulla’s Principles of Hindu Law (13th ed., Art. 465) which states that a minor widow may adopt only if she is capable of forming an independent judgment, generally reached in the sixteenth year according to Benaras writers.
Respondents' (Defendants') Position
- Bhaskara Rao had executed a will validly authorising the adoption.
- Seshamma performed the requisite ceremonies in May 1904, and the adoption was accepted and acted upon for nearly five decades, creating a strong presumption of validity.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Venkataseetarama Chandra Roy v. Kanchu Marthi Raju, 1925 PC 201 | Long lapse of time creates a heavy presumption in favour of the validity of an adoption that has been openly acted upon. | The Court invoked this principle to place a “very heavy” burden on the appellant to disprove the adoption after nearly 50 years, a burden the appellant failed to discharge. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the scant and conflicting evidence concerning Seshamma’s age in 1904. Documents and testimony variably placed her age between 10 and 17 years, with some records designating her a minor and others a major. Crucially, no birth register was produced by the appellant to establish her exact age.
Given the five-decade delay in challenging the adoption, coupled with consistent family and public recognition of Rajeswara Rao as the adopted son—including his succession to the hereditary office of Karnam and a 1937 property transaction in which the appellant’s own mother acknowledged his adoptive status—the Court applied a “strongest presumption” of validity. This presumption, drawn from both Mulla’s Hindu Law (Art. 512) and the Privy Council precedent, required cogent rebuttal.
Finding no affirmative evidence that Seshamma lacked the requisite discretion in May 1904, and noting that all direct witnesses were long deceased, the Court concluded that the presumption of validity remained unrebutted. Accordingly, the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts—namely, the execution of the will, the factum of adoption, and its ceremonial compliance—were upheld.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed with Costs.
The dismissal confirms the validity of the 1904 adoption and secures the defendants’ title to Bhaskara Rao’s properties. The ruling reinforces the principle that long-standing, openly acted-upon adoptions carry a heavy presumption of validity, especially when key witnesses are no longer available. No new legal precedent was created, but the decision underscores the evidentiary burden on parties who seek to unsettle decades-old family arrangements.
R.S Bachawat, J.— This dispute relates to the succession to the immovable properties of late Bhaskara Rao, a Brahmin Karnam, 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 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, authorising his widow Seshamma to adopt a son, that pursuant to such authority she adopted Rajeswara Rao in or about May, 1904, that Rajeswara Rao died in 1950, 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 the will, dated November 29, 1903; (2) his widow Seshamma in fact adopted Rajeswara Rao in or about May 1904, and the requisite ceremonies of adoption were performed. These findings of fact are no longer challenged.
2. 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.
3. 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 following passage in Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law, 13th Edn. Article 465, p. 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 independent 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 formar view was taken in a recent Madras case.”
4. Now there is no clear evidence on the question of Seshmma'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 of death suggests that she was then aged about 14 years. In Ext. A-7, dated March 25, 1907, Ext. B-5, dated May 2, 1907, Ext. B-110, dated April 25, 1909, Ext. B-7, dated November 1, 1911, Ext. B-22, dated November 15, 1911, Exts. A-11 and A-12, dated November 17, 1911, she was described as a minor. But Ext. B-138, dated August 9, 1910, described her as a major. The evidence of DW 2 suggests 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 in 1898, 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 1953 after a lapse of about 50 years. The long delay in filing the suit is not satisfactorily explained. 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 lifetime Rajeswara Rao was recognised by every member of the family as the adopted son of Bhaskara. Rao. He was registered as Karnam and acted as such till his death. Under Ext. 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 long lapse of time and the recognition of Rajeswara Rao 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 Edn., Article 512, p. 519:
“But when there is a lapse of 55 years between the adoption and its being questioned, every allowance 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 upon the footing that the adoption was a valid act, the burden must rest heavily upon him who challenges its validity,” see also Venkataseetarama Chandra Roy v. Kanchu Marthi Raju 1925 PC 201.” 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 Seshamma 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 adoption. There is no merit in this appeal.
5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Alert