to the provision of Section 182 of the Hindu Law, the onus, obviously, is upon
the alienee to prove the transfer to have been made for legal necessity. In the
instant case, the onus is upon the transferee and transferee (defendants Nos. 1
and 2) as both of them contested the suit to prove the kinds of legal necessity
led to the transfer of the suit land.
word ‘Necessity when used in this connection has somewhat special, almost
technical meaning. It does not mean actual compulsion, but the kind of pressure
which the law recognises as serious and sufficient. The receipt even of full
value for the property by a Hindu widow, where there is no pressure on the
estate, will not justify the sale.
Das alias Shib Nath Sarker Vs. Shashi Bala Sarker and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 415.
Joyesres Vs. Raj Dewan, 1962(SC) 857; Promode Kumar Ray Vs. Binodini Halder,
21DLR. 673; Jopyanta Bijoy Chakraborty Vs. Gopesh Chandra Chakraborty, 35 DLR
enjoins that physical act of giving and taking of the adoptive son is
absolutely necessary to constitute a valid adoption-All that is necessary is
that there should be some overt act to signify the delivery of the adoptive boy
from one family to another.
exercise of the right of adoption by the window for a period of 12 years does
not render the adoption invalid.
adoption of a son to her husband by a Hindu widow under the Dayabhaga school of
law relates back to the time of her husband’s death and it has thus a
retrospective effect. An adoptive son is entitled to be put in possession of
his adoptive father’s property left by him at his death.
Ranjan Das and another Vs. Bijan Behari Roy and anr, 14 BLD (HCD) 573