Article 57: (Art. 118 of the Act of 1908):
The period of limitation for a suit to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption is invalid or never, in fact, took place is three years and the time of limitation starts to run when the alleged adoption becomes known to the plaintiff.
Image Source: owensadoption.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
‘Adoption’ means taking into one’s family as a relation especially as a son or a daughter. In Jangbir Singh v. Ajmer Singh (1971 Cur.LT 809), it has been held that a suit brought to obtain a declaration to the effect that an alleged adoption is invalid or never in fact took place attracts the Article 57. But when there is no evidence that the plaintiff has any knowledge of adoption, there is no scope for the Article 57 to apply.
The Article 57 applies only to declaratory suits and not to a suit for possession. In S.I. Zoshphma v. M.J. Rock, [(1980) 1 MLJ 255], it has (been held that when the plaintiff is himself the adoptive father the suit filed by him does not attract the Article 57.
In Kamalamma v. R.V Narasimha Reddi, [(1969) 1 Andh.W.R. 308], it has been held that when the main relief in the suit is based on title and a prayer is made incidentally for a declaration that the deed of adoption is invalid the Article 57 does not apply because in order to attract the Article 57 the suit must be in truth and substance a suit for declaration.
In Sitam v. Bikhni Devi, (AIR 1960 Pat. 452), it has been held that when a Hindu widow seeks to recover possession by filing a suit for recovery of possession of the estate of the deceased husband from the defendant who had taken possession of the estate claiming to be the adopted son of the husband the suit being essentially a suit for possession, the Article 57 has no manner of application.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Udit Narain v. Randhir, (45 All. 169), it has been held that where the plaintiff executed a deed of adoption in which he declared that he had adopted a certain boy, and afterwards he brought a suit for a declaration that the adoption deed was void and that the adoption had in fact never taken place, the period of limitation for the suit ran from the date of the adoption deed.
The onus is primarily upon the plaintiff is a suit under the Section 57 is prima facie barred, as for instance, the adoption is said to have taken place before the period provided in the Article 57. If the plaintiff gives prima facie proof of knowledge within the period of limitation onus shifts to the defendant and burden is on the defendant to prove the date of knowledge of adoption if he wants to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground of limitation.
In Ayyadorai v. Solai Ammal, (24 Mad. 405), it has been held that when an adoption is made by a Hindu widow without authority, it is the duty of the immediate revisioner to bring a suit for declaration within the period prescribed by the Article 57; and if the immediate reversioner fails to bring a suit within that period, the suit by the remote reversioner will also be barred.
The wording in the Article 57 is clear that what Courts for the purposes of limitation is the knowledge of the plaintiff.