The Ghisalal vs Dhapubai case highlights the legal and societal transformations within the Indian context, particularly in Hindu families. Historically, Hindu males held an absolute right to adopt, while their wives did not possess similar rights. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956 brought about significant changes, granting equal rights to both male and female members regarding adoption.

Facts of Ghisalal vs Dhapubai

In the Baisakh of Samvat 2016 (1959), Ghisalal was adopted by Gopalji from his biological father, Kishanlal. The adoption ceremony included traditional rituals such as the application of tilak on Ghisalal’s forehead and the distribution of sweets. A registered deed of adoption was executed by Kishanlal and Gopalji on June 25, 1964.

Gopalji had inherited several properties from his father, Roopji, including agricultural lands in villages Jeeran, Arnya Barona, Kuchrod, a two-storeyed house and one courtyard. Following the adoption, Ghisalal became a coparcener in Gopalji’s family, thereby acquiring rights in these properties.

On October 22, 1966, Gopalji executed three gift deeds transferring lands in Jeeran, Arnya Barona and Kuchrod to his wife, Dhapubai. Subsequently, on January 19, 1973, Dhapubai sold a portion of land in survey No.945 of village Kuchrod to Sunderbai via a sale deed.

However, Gopalji later denied having adopted Ghisalal, claiming that no adoption ceremony was performed. Dhapubai also denied the adoption, asserting that she had not consented to it.

Issues Raised in Ghisalal vs Dhapubai

The issues raised in Ghisalal vs Dhapubai were:

1. Are the suit properties the property of a Joint Hindu Family?
2. Is the plaintiff the legally adopted son of Gopalji and Dhapubai?
3. Is the Gift Deed dated October 22, 1966, illegal and void?
4. Does the sale deed dated January 19, 1973, have any effect on the plaintiff?

Statutes Involved

• Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
• The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Constitution of India

Arguments From Petitioner

Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel for Ghisalal, argued in Ghisalal vs Dhapubai the following:

• The trial court and the lower appellate court had both concluded that Ghisalal was adopted in accordance with the law, supported by the registered deed of adoption executed by both the natural and adoptive fathers. The High Court rightly upheld this finding.
• The consent of Dhapubai was presumed by the lower courts because she was present at the adoption ceremonies and did not contest the adoption until the filing of the written statement in the suit filed by Ghisalal.
• After his adoption, Ghisalal became a coparcener in Gopalji’s family, entitling him to half of the properties inherited by his adoptive father. The finding of the lower appellate court and the High Court that challenged the Gift Deed dated November 29, 1944, was legally unsustainable as it adversely affected his rights in the suit properties.

Arguments From Respondent

Shri Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel for Dhapubai, argued in Ghisalal vs Dhapubai the following:

• Although all courts held that Ghisalal was validly adopted by Gopalji, this finding should be set aside as Dhapubai had not consented to the adoption.
• The mere presence of Dhapubai at the adoption ceremonies could not be interpreted as her consent. The consent required by the proviso to Section 7 of the 1956 Act is mandatory and without the wife’s proven consent, the adoption cannot be considered valid.

Ghisalal vs Dhapubai Judgement

In Ghisalal vs Dhapubai, the Learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the judgement of the trial court and the lower appellate court, affirming that Ghisalal was validly adopted by Gopalji and became a coparcener in his adoptive father’s family.

Reasoning:

• The presence of Dhapubai at the adoption ceremony was considered as her consent to the adoption.
• The registered deed of adoption dated June 25, 1964, served as proof that Ghisalal was validly adopted.

Ghisalal vs Dhapubai Case Summary

In the case of Ghisalal vs Dhapubai, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Ghisalal’s adoption by Gopalji, despite Dhapubai’s claims that she did not consent to the adoption. The Court determined that Dhapubai’s presence at the adoption ceremony constituted implicit consent. Ghisalal, therefore, became a coparcener in Gopalji’s family and was entitled to a share of the properties.

The Ghisalal vs Dhapubai judgement reinforced the importance of registered adoption deeds and the evolving gender dynamics within Hindu adoption laws, as established by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. This case sets a significant precedent for future adoption disputes, emphasising both legal and implicit consent in adoption procedures.