Lakshman Singh Kothari Vs. Smt. Rup Kanwar
acts; the object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity (Colebrooks Digest. Book V. T. 273, commentary), and Yeshwadas employing her uncle to perform this physical act, which derived its efficacy from her own volition accompanying it, cannot, we think, deprive it of its legal effect. We hold, therefore, with the learned Judge, that the adoption is proved and effectual. This view was approved by the Bombay High Court in Shamsing v. Santabai, ILR 25 Bom 551. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Viyyamma v. Suryaprakasa Rao, ILR (1942) Mad 608 : (AIR 1942 Mad 379 ) applied the principle to a converse case of an adoptive father delegating his power to accept the adoptive boy to another. Sir Lionel Leach, C. J., in extending the rule of delegation to a case of receiving says at p. 613 (of ILR Mad): (at p. 380) (of AIR) thus: If this were not so, what would be the position when through accident or illness the natural father or the adoptive parent could not be present in person to do what is necessary? There could be no adoption. Further citation would be redundant. It is, therefore, settled law that, after the natural and adoptive parents exercised their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, either of them could, under certain unavoidable compelling circumstances, delegate his right to give or the right to receive the adoptive son, as the case may be, to a third party. 9. Strong reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Biradhmal v. Prabhabhati, AIR 1939 PC 152 . There a widow executed a deed of adoption whereby she purported to have adopted as son to her deceased husband a boy. The Sub-Registrar before whom the document was registered put to the boys natural father and to the widow questions whether they had executed the deed. The boy was also present at that time. The Judicial Committee held that, under the said circumstances, there was proof of giving and taking. The question posed by the Privy Council was stated thus: The sole issue discussed before their Lordships was the question of fact whether on 30th June, 1924, at about 6 p.m. when the adoption deed was being registered the boy was present and was given by Bhanwarmal and taken by the widow. The question so posed was answered thus at p. 155: ......their Lordships think that the evidence that the boy was present at the time when the sub-registrar put to his father and to the widow the questions whether they had executed the deed is sufficient to prove a giving and taking. This sentence is rather laconic and may lend support to the argument that mere putting questions by the Sub-Registrar would amount to giving and taking of the adoptive boy; but the subsequent discussion makes it clear that Privy Council had not laid down any such wide proposition. Their Lordships proceeded to observe: Even if the suggestion be accepted that the auspicious day ended at noon on the 30th and that the deed was executed before noon and before the boy arrived at Ajmer, it seems quite probable that the registration proceedings which were arranged for 6 p.m. would be regarded as a suitable occasion for carrying out the very simple ceremony that was necessary. These observations indicate that on the material placed before the Privy Council- it is not necessary to say that we would come to the same conclusion on the same material-it held that there was giving and taking of the boy at about 6 p.m. when the document was given for registration. The Judicial Committee, in our view, did not intend to depart from the well recognized doctrine of Hindu Law that there should be a ceremony of giving and taking to validate an adoption. 10. The law may be briefly stated thus: Under the Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it. The exigencies of the situation arising out of diverse circumstances necessitated the introduction of the doctrine of delegation; and, therefore, the parents, after exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, may both or either of them delegate the physical act of handing over the boy or receiving him, as the case may be, to a third party. 11. In the present case, none of the aforesaid conditions has been satisfied. The High Court found that Zalim Singh and Moti Singh did not decide to take the boy in adoption on February 14, 1923. The High Court further found that their common intention was to take the boy in adoption only after he was admitted in Gurukul or thereafter. The documents filed and the oral evidence adduced in the case establish that the adoptive father did not delegate his power to give the boy in adoption to Moti Singh to Hira Lal and that Moti Singh did not receive the boy as a part of the ceremony of adoption, but only received him with a view to send him to Gurukul. We, therefore, hold that the ceremony of giving and taking which is very essential for the validity of an adoption, had not taken place in this case.
0[ds]Further citation would be redundant. It is, therefore, settled law that, after the natural and adoptive parents exercised their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, either of them could, under certain unavoidable compelling circumstances, delegate his right to give or the right to receive the adoptive son, as the case may be, to a third partyWe, therefore, hold, on the evidence, oral and documentary, that Sujan Singh and Moti Singh wanted to take the plaintiff in adoption either after the boy was admitted in Gurukul or after he finished his education therein that Hira Lal, on the requrest of the plaintiffs father, accompanied the boy to Sujan Singhs house at Ajmer and left him there, that Moti Singh welcomed the boy as was expected of him and thereafter sent him to Gurukul and that no formal ceremony of giving and taking had taken placeThese observations indicate that on the material placed before the Privy Council- it is not necessary to say that we would come to the same conclusion on the same material-it held that there was giving and taking of the boy at about 6 p.m. when the document was given for registration. The Judicial Committee, in our view, did not intend to depart from the well recognized doctrine of Hindu Law that there should be a ceremony of giving and taking to validate an adoption10. The law may be briefly stated thus: Under the Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it. The exigencies of the situation arising out of diverse circumstances necessitated the introduction of the doctrine of delegation; and, therefore, the parents, after exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, may both or either of them delegate the physical act of handing over the boy or receiving him, as the case may be, to a third party11. In the present case, none of the aforesaid conditions has been satisfied. The High Court found that Zalim Singh and Moti Singh did not decide to take the boy in adoption on February 14, 1923. The High Court further found that their common intention was to take the boy in adoption only after he was admitted in Gurukul or thereafter. The documents filed and the oral evidence adduced in the case establish that the adoptive father did not delegate his power to give the boy in adoption to Moti Singh to Hira Lal and that Moti Singh did not receive the boy as a part of the ceremony of adoption, but only received him with a view to send him to Gurukul. We, therefore, hold that the ceremony of giving and taking which is very essential for the validity of an adoption, had not taken place in this case
### Instruction:
Assess the case to predict the court's ruling (favorably (1) or unfavorably (0)), and then expound on this prediction by highlighting and analyzing key textual elements from the proceeding.

### Input:
acts; the object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity (Colebrooks Digest. Book V. T. 273, commentary), and Yeshwadas employing her uncle to perform this physical act, which derived its efficacy from her own volition accompanying it, cannot, we think, deprive it of its legal effect. We hold, therefore, with the learned Judge, that the adoption is proved and effectual. This view was approved by the Bombay High Court in Shamsing v. Santabai, ILR 25 Bom 551. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Viyyamma v. Suryaprakasa Rao, ILR (1942) Mad 608 : (AIR 1942 Mad 379 ) applied the principle to a converse case of an adoptive father delegating his power to accept the adoptive boy to another. Sir Lionel Leach, C. J., in extending the rule of delegation to a case of receiving says at p. 613 (of ILR Mad): (at p. 380) (of AIR) thus: If this were not so, what would be the position when through accident or illness the natural father or the adoptive parent could not be present in person to do what is necessary? There could be no adoption. Further citation would be redundant. It is, therefore, settled law that, after the natural and adoptive parents exercised their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, either of them could, under certain unavoidable compelling circumstances, delegate his right to give or the right to receive the adoptive son, as the case may be, to a third party. 9. Strong reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Biradhmal v. Prabhabhati, AIR 1939 PC 152 . There a widow executed a deed of adoption whereby she purported to have adopted as son to her deceased husband a boy. The Sub-Registrar before whom the document was registered put to the boys natural father and to the widow questions whether they had executed the deed. The boy was also present at that time. The Judicial Committee held that, under the said circumstances, there was proof of giving and taking. The question posed by the Privy Council was stated thus: The sole issue discussed before their Lordships was the question of fact whether on 30th June, 1924, at about 6 p.m. when the adoption deed was being registered the boy was present and was given by Bhanwarmal and taken by the widow. The question so posed was answered thus at p. 155: ......their Lordships think that the evidence that the boy was present at the time when the sub-registrar put to his father and to the widow the questions whether they had executed the deed is sufficient to prove a giving and taking. This sentence is rather laconic and may lend support to the argument that mere putting questions by the Sub-Registrar would amount to giving and taking of the adoptive boy; but the subsequent discussion makes it clear that Privy Council had not laid down any such wide proposition. Their Lordships proceeded to observe: Even if the suggestion be accepted that the auspicious day ended at noon on the 30th and that the deed was executed before noon and before the boy arrived at Ajmer, it seems quite probable that the registration proceedings which were arranged for 6 p.m. would be regarded as a suitable occasion for carrying out the very simple ceremony that was necessary. These observations indicate that on the material placed before the Privy Council- it is not necessary to say that we would come to the same conclusion on the same material-it held that there was giving and taking of the boy at about 6 p.m. when the document was given for registration. The Judicial Committee, in our view, did not intend to depart from the well recognized doctrine of Hindu Law that there should be a ceremony of giving and taking to validate an adoption. 10. The law may be briefly stated thus: Under the Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it. The exigencies of the situation arising out of diverse circumstances necessitated the introduction of the doctrine of delegation; and, therefore, the parents, after exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, may both or either of them delegate the physical act of handing over the boy or receiving him, as the case may be, to a third party. 11. In the present case, none of the aforesaid conditions has been satisfied. The High Court found that Zalim Singh and Moti Singh did not decide to take the boy in adoption on February 14, 1923. The High Court further found that their common intention was to take the boy in adoption only after he was admitted in Gurukul or thereafter. The documents filed and the oral evidence adduced in the case establish that the adoptive father did not delegate his power to give the boy in adoption to Moti Singh to Hira Lal and that Moti Singh did not receive the boy as a part of the ceremony of adoption, but only received him with a view to send him to Gurukul. We, therefore, hold that the ceremony of giving and taking which is very essential for the validity of an adoption, had not taken place in this case.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
Further citation would be redundant. It is, therefore, settled law that, after the natural and adoptive parents exercised their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, either of them could, under certain unavoidable compelling circumstances, delegate his right to give or the right to receive the adoptive son, as the case may be, to a third partyWe, therefore, hold, on the evidence, oral and documentary, that Sujan Singh and Moti Singh wanted to take the plaintiff in adoption either after the boy was admitted in Gurukul or after he finished his education therein that Hira Lal, on the requrest of the plaintiffs father, accompanied the boy to Sujan Singhs house at Ajmer and left him there, that Moti Singh welcomed the boy as was expected of him and thereafter sent him to Gurukul and that no formal ceremony of giving and taking had taken placeThese observations indicate that on the material placed before the Privy Council- it is not necessary to say that we would come to the same conclusion on the same material-it held that there was giving and taking of the boy at about 6 p.m. when the document was given for registration. The Judicial Committee, in our view, did not intend to depart from the well recognized doctrine of Hindu Law that there should be a ceremony of giving and taking to validate an adoption10. The law may be briefly stated thus: Under the Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it. The exigencies of the situation arising out of diverse circumstances necessitated the introduction of the doctrine of delegation; and, therefore, the parents, after exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, may both or either of them delegate the physical act of handing over the boy or receiving him, as the case may be, to a third party11. In the present case, none of the aforesaid conditions has been satisfied. The High Court found that Zalim Singh and Moti Singh did not decide to take the boy in adoption on February 14, 1923. The High Court further found that their common intention was to take the boy in adoption only after he was admitted in Gurukul or thereafter. The documents filed and the oral evidence adduced in the case establish that the adoptive father did not delegate his power to give the boy in adoption to Moti Singh to Hira Lal and that Moti Singh did not receive the boy as a part of the ceremony of adoption, but only received him with a view to send him to Gurukul. We, therefore, hold that the ceremony of giving and taking which is very essential for the validity of an adoption, had not taken place in this case
