Although the person who pleads that he had been adopted is bound to prove his title as adopted son, as a fact, yet from the long period during which he has been received as an adopted son, every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove such fact is to be favourably entertained.
The case is analogous to that in which the legitimacy of a person in possession has been acquiesced in for a considerable time, and afterwards impeached by a party, who had a right to question the legitimacy, where the defendant, in order to defend his status, is allowed to invoke against the claimant every presumption which arises from long recognition of his legitimacy by members of his family. In the case of a Hindu, long recognition as an adopted son, raises even a stronger presumption in favour of the validity of his adoption, arising from the possibility of the loss of his rights in his own family by being adopted in another family.
In the absence of direct evidence much value has to be attached to the fact that the alleged adopted son had without controversy succeeded to his adoptive father’s estate and enjoyed till his death and that documents during his life and after his death were framed upon the basis of the adoption. In the case of an ancient adoption evidence showing that the boy was treated for a long time as the adopted son at a time when there was no controversy is sufficient to prove the adoption although evidence of actual giving and taking is not forth coming.
Case Law:- L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi, (1970) 1 SCC 677 : AIR 1970 SC 1286
Ghostline Legal