1.

With respect to Sec 96 wrw order 41

Tamilselvi vs Saravanan, 3rd Aug17, Madras HC.

As such it is clear that even though there may not be any specific provision of
law enabling the aggrieved party to prefer appeal, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that the nature of the order passed tantamounts to a decree within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of CPC, certainly Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule
1 of CPC would be attracted. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that powers of
the revision Court under Section 115 of CPC is limited. However, the power of
the appellate Court is wide. The appellate Court is the last Court of facts and it
is expected to once again consider the factual position involved in the matter
and discuss threadbare the evidence adduced before the lower Court. On the
other hand, the powers of the revisional Court is limited. If at all there is any
illegality or perversity or non-exercise of power or jurisdiction or wrong
exercise of jurisdiction, then the question of invoking the revisional power
would arise. Once the valuable right of title over the immovable property has
been decided, then the aggrieved party should have the opportunity to approach
the appellate forum seeking redressal, as otherwise the lower Court itself would
become the last Court of facts and that too relating to an adjudication touching
upon the valuable right of an individual over the immovable property, which
cannot be the intention of law at all.

2. Rights of a surrogate child: Refer to Protection of child Rights Act,

2005. This act is considered competent to deal with the rights of a
surrogate child.
3. With respect to Section 7 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956

Rajasthan HC in the case of Radhey Mohan vs State Of Rajasthan And

Ors. on 23 November, 2001, held that
A personal of the adoption deed allegedly executed by Ram Lal reveals that
before or at the time of adopting Radhey Mohan, he did not obtain consent of
his wife. Ram La! did not even state in the deed that his wife was not alive and
obtaining her consent was not possible. Thus as per proviso appended to
Section 7 of the Act, Ram Lal without the consent of his wife did not have the
capacity to take Radhey Mohan in adoption and the adoption does not appear
to be prima facie valid in view of Section 6(1) of the Act. Therefore unless a
competent civil court declares the adoption of Radhey Mohan by Ram Lal as
valid, we find ourselves unable to draw any presumption as to the validity of the
said adoption.

4. With respect to Section 2 explanation B of Hindu adoptions Act

In the case of Sohan Lal & Another vs Addl. District & Sessions Judge
court no. 9

on 27 January, 2015, Allahabad HC held,

Explanation (b) to Section 2 (1) of the Hindu Adoptions Act provides that any
child legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina
or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community,
group or family to which such parent belongs, shall be Hindu. Explanation (bb)
to Section 2 (1) also provides that a child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
who has been abandoned both by his father and mother or whose parentage is
not known and who is brought up as a Hindu shall also be a Hindu.

5. Section 32 of Indian Succession Act.

In the case of Sugumal Duraisingh Vs. Annamani Ammal, Madras High

Court held that:
petitioner has also relied upon the following decisions.a) in 2000 (3) lw 409
rabi v. jasu leela the division bench of this court has held as follows;under
section 32 of the indian succession act, the property of an intestate devolves
upon the wife or husband, or upon those who are of the kindred of the
deceased, in the order and according to the ..... executant in favour of the
petitioner has been marked as ex.p2. at this juncture, it would be more useful to
look into section 68 of the indian evidence act, 1872 and also section 63 of the
indian succession act, 1925. section 68 of the indian evidence act, 1872 reads
as follows;proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.- if a
document is required by law ..... of this judgment, two attesting witnesses have
been examined for the purpose of proving the due execution and attestation of
ex.p2 as contemplated under sections 68 of the indian evidence act, 1872 and
also under section 63 of the indian succession act, 1925. therefore, it is quite
clear that the facts mentioned in the decision referred to supra, are not identical
to the facts of the ..... counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent is that the
propounder of the will has also not been examined. as per the provision of
section 68 of the indian evidence act, 1872 and also as per the provision of
section 63 of the indian succession act, 1925 for the purpose of proving valid
execution and attestation a particular will one attesting witness has to be
examined.

6. With respect to Section 36 and 37 of the Indian Succession Act,

In the case of Jane Anthony vs V.M. Siyath, 25th sept,2017, the Kerala HC held:
Counsel for the appellants relied on Section 33 (a) of the Indian Succession
Act and contended that the first appellant being the widow of the deceased is
entitled to one- third of the compensation and the remaining is to be apportioned
among the lineal descendants who are the children of the deceased born in the
first appellant namely appellants 2 and 3 herein. However, counsel for
respondents 4 and 5 referred to Sections 36 & 37 of the Indian Succession Act
and contended that respondents 4 and 5 being the children of the deceased
are also entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. We are of the view
that Section 36 and Section 37 of the Indian Succession Act should be read
with Section 33 (a) and the combined effect is that one-third of the estate of
the deceased have to be first allocated to the widow and the balance should be
distributed among lineal descendants namely the children. Section 36 provides
that share of the estate of the deceased among lineal descendants should be in
accordance with Sections 37 to 40 of the Indian Succession Act. Even though
counsel for the appellants relied on Sections 57 and 21 of the Indian Divorce
Act 1869 and contended that only legitimate children are entitled to succeed to
the estate except in the specific case of exception under Section 21 of the said
Act, counsel for respondents 4 and 5 referred to Section 8 of the Indian
Succession Act and contended that illegitimate children has a recognised status
under the Indian Succession Act. He also pointed out that there is nothing in the
Indian Succession Act barring illegitimate children from succeeding to the
estate of the deceased.