Shri Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. ###### r958 were part of the transactions of sale of liquor which . -. . . produced the profit and therE1fore they had a profit _Pu•J.•b D_ _[15]_ _tilhng_ making quality. Again, a wholesaler was quite free ###### Industms Ltd. to return the bottles or not as he liked and if he did _The c0_ _,;;;.issioner_ not return them, the appellant had no liability to re ##### o/ In<ome-1••· fund. It would then keep the moneys as its own and _Simla_ they would then certainly be profit. The moneys when paid were the moneys of the appellant and were _Sarhar_ _J._ thereafter in no sense the moneys of the persons who paid them. Having given the matter our anxious consideration which the difficulties involved in it require, we think ###### that the correct view to take is that the amounts paid to the appellant and described as "Empty Bottles Return Security Deposit " were trading receipts and therefore income of the appellant assessable to tax. ###### We agree with the High Court that the question framed for decision in this case, should be answered in the affirmative .. ###### In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs in this Court. ###### Appeal dismiaatd. SHRI KISHORI LAL ###### _v._ MST. CHALTIBAI . ## (JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) _Hindu Law-Adoption, proof of-Evidence not proving_ ' _adop-_ _tion-Estoppel-Both parties knowing true facts._ _if doctrine_ _applic-_ _able-Admissions and conduct_ _of parties,_ _if can_ _prove_ _adoption._ The respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession of certaiµ properties left by her deceased husband L .. The appellant contested the suit on the grounds that L had adopted him as his son six months before his death. In addition to the.oral evidence of adoption the appellant alleged that he performed the obsequies of L as such adopted son, that on the thirteenth day after the death of L he was taken by the respondent in her lap, that he entered into possession of the estate of L, that the ###### (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 699 respondent performed his marriage and that he was recognised as the adopted son of L even by the respondent. The appellant further pleaded that the respondent was estopped from challenging his adoption by her representations in previous legal proceedings and in documents and on account of the fact that the appellant had by this adoption lost his share of the propei;ties in his natural family. The respondent denied both the adoption and the treatment of acceptance of the appellant as the adopted son of L. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding the adoption proved. On appeal the High Court held the adoption was not proved and decreed the suit. Both Courts held that the respondent was not estopped from challenging the adoption. _Held,_ that the High Court had correctly held that the adoption of the appellant by L had not been established. As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, the evidence to support it should be such that it should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth. _Held_ further, that the respondent was not estopped from disputing the adoption. The correct rule of estoppel applicable in the case of adoption is that it does not confer status; it only shuts the mouths of certain persons if they try to deny the adoption. But where both farties are coversant with the true state of facts the doctrine o estoppel has no application. Admissions made by a party are not conclusive, and unless they constitute estoppel, the maker is at liberty to prove that they were mistaken or were untrue. Presumptions arising from the conduct of a party cannot sustain an adoption even though it might have been acquiesced in by all concerned when the evidence shows that the adoption did not take place. _Mohori Bibi_ v. _Dhurmdas Ghosh,_ (1902) 30 I.A. II4, relied upon. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. ###### 177 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Septem###### ber 28, 1953, of the former Nagpur High Court in First Appeal No. 115 of 1951, arising out of the judg ment and decree dated July 25, 1951, of the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Suit No. 14-A of 1957. _C._ _B. Aggarwala_ and _Radheylal Aggarwal,_ for the appellant. ###### S. -P. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, for the respon dent. ##### 1958. December 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAri _K_ isliori _Lal_ v. _M_ sl. _Clialtibai_ 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. ###### z95B KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Nagpur reversing the _**Sbri**_ _**I<ishori Lal**_ v. decree of the Additional District Judge dismissing the _Mst._ _chaltibai_ plaintiff's Ruit. The appellant before us is the defendant Kishori Lal who claimed to be the adopted son, _Kapur_ _J._ adopted by the husband of the plaintiff, Mst. Chaltibai who is the respondent in this appeal. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Mst. Chaltibai, the widow of Lakshminarayan, a Marwari Aggarwal of the District of Bhandara against Badrinara.yan defendant No. 1 and his son Kishori Lal defendant No. 2 now appellant for a declaration that properties in sch. B & C belonged to her as heir to her deceased husband Lakshminarayan and for possession of the property in schedule D. The facts of the litigation relevant for the purpose of this judgment are these : Badrinarayan and Lakshminarayan were two brothers the former who was elder was carrying on bu8iness at Raipur and the latter who was younger carried on business in the ancestral village named Tirora where it is stated Badrinarayan also was doing some business. Lakshminarayan's first ###### wife died in 1919 leaving a son and a daughter. In 1922 Lakshminarayan married the respondent Mst. Chaltibai. His son died sometime after this marriage and therefore the only remaining child of Lakshminarayan was the daughter Mst. Jamnabai who was married to one Chotteylal. On January 6, 1936, Lakshminarayan died of a heart disease leaving his estate which is given in schs. B, C and D and is ###### valued at about Rs. 30,000. Although the plaintiff Chaltibai, now respondent, had alleged that Lakshmi narayan died suddenly and did not suffer from any heart disease previous to his death, the appellant pleaded that Lakshminarayan developed heart trouble in 1934. He also pleaded that because of this heart trouble Lakshminarayan became despaired of begetting a son anq therefore adopted in Jaisth (May-June) 1935 the appellant Kishorilal then aged 13 years who was the youngest of the five sons of his brother Badrinarayan, the others being Mohanlal, Gowardhan, ###### Nandlal and Narayan. He further pleaded that after (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 701 his adoption he resided with J_,akshminarayan a~ his _z95B_ adopted son and when Lakshminarayan died he per- _Shri Kishori Lal_ formed his obsequies as such adopted son, was placed v. on the gaddi and the turban was tied on his he~d in _Mst. Chaltibai_ ###### accordance with the custom of the caste ; that he was on the thirteenth day (tervi) taken by the respotident _Kapur_ _J._ Chaltibai in her lap from Badrinarayan with the consent and in the presence of the relations of Lak$hmi- · ###### narayan · on the thirteenth day of the death of Lak- shminarayan ; that he entered into possession of the estate of the deceased Lakshminarayan and was recognised as his adopted son even by the respor;ident who continued to accept and treat him as such· upto 1946 ; and in 1942 the respondent performed his (the appellant's marriage). After he attained majority he managed the estate himself and there was a. partition in the family of Badrina.rayan on October 30, 1943, in which the appellant, because of his having been given out in adoption in another family, received nosha.re. The respondent in the plaint denied both the adoption and the treatment or acceptance of the app~Uant ###### a.a an adopted son. She also stated that she was an illiterate purda.nashin woman who was not conversant with the management of business and after the death of her husband she reposed full confidence in ~adri­ narayan who assured her that he would properly look after her affairs, business and property and conseqµent###### ly Ba.drinarayan took over the management of the estate and the account books and also looked after court work. At his instance she (the respon~ent) signed certain papers without understanding them or without knowing their contents and sometime$ she even signed blank papers. The appellant and his father Badrinarayan then attempted to oust her 1from the business and the estate of her husband which led to disputes between the parties and proceedings under as. 107 & 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started, a receiver was appointed and the Magistrate by an order dated May 19, 1947, directed the partles to have their rights decided by a civil court. This order ##### was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in ###### revision. In the criminal case the appellant, it is I 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. ###### ' [958 ] alleged, asserted that he had been adopted by Lak _Shri_ _Kishori Lal_ shminarain six months prior to his death, a fact which v. the respondent Chaltiba.i denied in her plaint. _Mst. Chaltibai_ On these pleadings the court framed four issues and the two relevant issues for the purpose of this appeal ###### Kapur]. are: (1) Did the deceased Lakshmina.ra.yan validly adopt the defendant No. 2 in the bri11;ht fortnight of Jyestha (June), 1935 A. D.? (b) Was the adoption valid according to law? (2) Had the plaintiff all a.long recognised the adoption as v a.lid and legal and had she been treating defendant No. 2 as Lakshmina.rayan's son all a.long ? #### (b) If so, result? ##### The trial court dismissed the suit. It held the adop tion proved but found against the appellant on the question of estoppel. The High Court on appeal reversed the finding as to the factum of adoption but ###### upheld the finding on the question of estoppel. It was of the opinion that the respondent was not estopped on account of any misrepresentation ma.de by her and ###### that there was no such conduct on her pa.rt which deprived her of her right of bringing the present suit ###### and that both parties knew that there was no adoption in fact. The appeal was therefore allowed. The defendant Kishorilal has brought this appeal to this Court under a certificate of the High Court and the judgment of the High Court is assailed on several grounds : Firstly, it was urged that the evidence pro###### duced in support of the adoption proved that the appellant was adopted by Lakshmina.rayan six months before his death. Secondly, the doctrine of estoppel ###### was relied upon, estoppel on the ground that the respondent Chaltibai had represented in previous legal proceedings and in various ways by execution of documents and by her actions that the appellant was the adopted son of Lakshminarayan. She had put him in possession as owner of all the estate of Lakshminarayan, and had given up her own claim to heirship to his estate and as a result of this conduct and representations made by the respondent the appellant had (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 703 altered his possesi;iion (i) by being completely trans- ~ 58 · planted from his real father's family into; another _Shri_ _Kishori_ _Lal_ family and (ii) by being deprived of his shate of the v. properties in his natural family. Thirdly, it was _M st._ _Chollibai_ ###### argued that because of her admission that the appellant was the adopted son of La.kshminarayan and his _liapur_ _J._ ###### heir the burden was on her to show that he was not the adopted son. And fourthly, it was submitted that having regard to the long course of conduct of the respondent Chaltibai in· treating the appellant as the adopted son of Lakshminarayan the evidence produced should be appraised in such a manner as to hold it sufficient for proving the adoption. There is no formal deed of adoption, the appellant ##### therefore sought to prove it by the evidence of six witnesses who were. his real brother Mohanlal, his natural father Badrinarayan and two ~elations Narsingdas and Shankarlal, a neighbour Cha~tarpatti who is some kind of a physician and Kishodlal himself appeared in support of his case. A seventh wit ness Sobharam was produced to prove an admission by ###### :f..akshminarayan that he had adopted the appellant. The story of the adoption as disclosed by the evidence for the appellant was that as Lakshminarayan had no son of his own he asked his brother Badrina.rayan to give his youngest son in adoption to which be agreed and the adoption took place at the house of Lakshmi. narayan at Tirori in the month of J yaistha 1935 about six months before the death of Lakshminarayan. The formalities of adoption, according to this evidence, consisted of placing the appellant as a son not in lap of the adoptive mother but of Laksh minarayan who put a _tilak_ on the appellant's forehead and tied a ~urban on his head. This was followed by distributiom pf _pansu-_ _pari_ to the persons assembled who were NaJiasingdas and Shankarlal who were from outside Tirora, Raman and Ji van Singh who were servants of Lakshminarayan, Chhatarpatti a neighbour and Bhaiyalal who has not been examined and there was also present Mohanlal a real brother of the appellant. Some other persons were also present by the appellant but they arit not witnesses ~n the case and Badrinarayan and Moh~nlal did 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _'958_ not mention their presence. No religious ceremony _Sh_ . _K'_ _h_ . _L_ was performed and there was no priest though witness 1 # " ':.°" • N arsingdas stated that a priest was present at the _Mst. chaltibai_ adoption ceremony and _ganesh_ _puja_ was performed. The evidence also shows that no invitations were sent _Kapur_ _J._ to the brotherhood, friends or relations and besides the persons mentioned above no one else was present and thus no publicity was given to the adoption. None of the relations of the respondent were invited or were present although she had brothers and sisters and they were married. Even the respondent Chaltibai ###### was not present at the ceremony of adoption. It is stated that she was in some inner room. And after the formalities of adoption Lakshminarayan himself put the adopted son in the lap of the respondent Chaltibai. The adoption was not followed by any feast nor was any photograph taken and no presents were given to the adopted son. Lakshminarayan did not consult any priest as is usual for fixing an auspicious day for adoption. Although the defendants were allowed to amend th9ir written statement they gave no details of the adoption by Lakshminarayan beyond saying that it was in the month of Jyaistha 1935 but what date it was, was not mentioned. The parties are Aggarwals and belong to a commercial community who maintain complete and detailed accounts. Although Badrinarayan who was defend###### ant No. 1 chose to put in accounts of January 20, 1936, in connection with what he expended on the tervi (thirteenth) day ceremony after the death of Lakshminarayan yet he filed no such accounts showing the date when he and his son the appellant came to Tirora from Raipur for the purposes of adoption or when they went back. No contemporary document' of any kind has been produced to show when the adoption took place or what was expended by Badrinarayan nor have the accounts of Lakshminarayan who according to the appellant himself maintained account books been produced to show as to the expenses of whatever little ceremony was observed on the date of the adoption. The account produced by Badrinarayan shows the amount expended on the occasion of ###### (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 705 thirteenth day ceremony after the death of Lakshmi- I narayan on betel leaves, milk, betelnuts and also what _Shri Kishori Lal_ was paid at the house of Lakshminarayan il!l.cluding v. the amount paid for the turban for the reading of the _Mst. Chaltibai_ _garud puran_ or what was paid to Kesu (which we are told is a pet name of Kishorilal) for touching 1the feet _Rapur_ _]._ of the elders. The significance of this fact has not been explained by the appellant. As an adoption results in changing the cpurse of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations it is necess~ry that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting i~s truth. Failure to produce accounts, in circumstances such as have been proved in the present case, would be a very suspicious circumstance. The importance of apcounts was emphasised by the Privy Council in _Sootritgun_ v. _Sabitra_ (1); in _Diwakar Rao_ v. _Ohandanl,al Rao_ (2); in _Rapur_ _]._ _Kishoril,al_ v. _Ohunilal_ ( [3] ); in _Lal Kunwar_ v. _Oharanji_ _Lal_ ( [4] ) and in _Padamlal_ v. _Fakira Debya_ ( [5] ). ' The oral evidence of witnesses deposing to the fac. tum of ado~tion .is both insufficient and ?ontra4icto!Y· Beyond their bemg agreed on the q uest10n of takmg the appellant in adoption by Lakshminarayian the witnesses are not in accord as to the details of the adoption or as to the ceremonies or as to the usual feast following it. The giving of presents is tbe only detail on which they are agreed, they all deposed that no presents were given. As to what happehed in regard to the taking of the appellant in her lap by the respondent after the death of Lakshminarayan the witnesses are not in accord. There is disagreement as to its date how it cam'e about and why. The adoption during the lifetime of Lakshminarayan is contra 1 dicted by a document dated January 24, 1938, a sale 1 dicted by a document dated January 24, 1938, a sale deed by the respondent Chaltibai in favour of the (r) (1834) 2 Knapp. 287. (2) (1916) I.L.R. 44 Calcutta 201 (1>.C.). (3) (1908) 36 I.A. 9. (4) (1909) 37 I.A. I, _7._ (5) A.LR. 1931 (P.C.) 84. 89 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _1958_ Firm Ganeshram Fatteh Chand the family firm of _S_ _[• ]_ [. ] _[K-:-; ]_ _0_ [. ] _[L ]_ 1 [witness N arsingdas. Therein ] [the ] [ado'fttion ] [of ] [the ] _0_ 1 "" _""_ v. _"_ _a_ appe II ant 1s · state d to h ave taken p ace a I ter the death _Ms1._ _Chaltib•i_ of Lakshminarayan and was by Chaltibai respondent under the authority of her deceased husband a.nd with _K•J>u•_ _J._ the consent of the whole family. This document wa.s witnessed by the natural father Badrina.ra.ya.n. No satisfactory explanation of this wholly different adoption being mentioned in a deed executed only two ###### years after the dea.th of Lakshminaraya.n ha.s been given by the appellant, except this that whether he was adopted by Lakshminaraya.n in his lifetime or after his death by the respondent Cha.ltibai, he would be the adopted son of Lakshminarayan and therefore this discrepant recital in the sale deed wa.s of little consequence. This argument ignores the case set up by the appellant in his written statement a.nd the utter lack of evidence of the authority of the husband or of the assent of his kinsmen which wa.s neither pleaded nor proved. Another circumstance which casts a great deal of doubt on the adoption set ###### up by the appellant is that after the adoption the appellant went back to Raipur where his na.tura.1 father was residing. Although Badrinarayan stated ###### that after the adoption the appellant lived with his adoptive father, this is negatived by the evidence produced by the appellant himself which is to the effect that he went back to school at Raipur a.nd returned to Tirora on the da.y La.kshmina.raya.n died. ###### The High Court also found that he left for Raipur after the obsequies a.nd returned three or four months ###### later. The school leaving certificate shows that he wa.s a student in the school a.t Tirora. from June 22, 1936 to June 30, 1937, and there he was entered a.s the son of Badrina.ra.ya.n. Ta.king a.II these facts into consideration the High Court, in our opinion, ha.s correctly held that the fa.ctum of adoption by La.kshmina.ra.ya.n has not been established. ##### It was next argued on behalf of the appellant that even though the evidence produced in support of the adoption might be unsatisfactory a.nd not sufficient to establish the fa.ctum of adoption the respondent in this (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 707 case was estopped from setting up the true facts of the _1958_ case inasmuch as she represented in the former docu- _Sh_ . -. d . . h rt _Kishori Lal_ ment an d 1 ega. 1 procee mgs d [. ] an m various ot er ways v. ###### that the appellant was the adopted son of the qeceased Mst. Chaltibai Lakshmina.ra.yan and thereby caused him to ' change his position by being transferred from the family of _I>apur_ _J._ ###### Ba.drina.ra.ya.n to that of La.kshmin&ra.ya.n. These documents will be discussed later. In this c91se both the parties were a.ware of the truth of the facts and consequently the doctrine of estoppal was inapplicable. #### It cannot be said that the respondent by her own words or conduct wilfully ca.used the appepant to believe the existence of a certain state of things i.e. adoption by Lakshminarayan and induced hilJl to a.ct on that belief so as to alter his position and therefore she could not be concluded from averring a. <Jifferent state of things a.s existing a.t the same time. See _Pickard_ v. _Sear_ (1) and _Square_ v. _Square_ (2). The Privy Council in _Mohori Bibi_ v. _Dhurmdas Ghosh_ { [3] ) held that there can be no estoppal where the truth of th~ matter is known to both the parties. Therefore when both the parties are equally conversant with the txiue facts the doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable. The documents giving rise to the plea. of estoppel were four and the appellant also relied on the acts of the respondent which will be referred to later. The first document was an application dated Mitrch 21, 1936, for a succession certificate which was file<l by the respondent a.s " guardian mother " of the appellant Kishorilal. The necessity for this application a.rose because in order to get insurance money on,a. policy taken out by the deceased Lakshmina.ra.yan al succession certificate had to be obtained. The Hi~h Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to ###### show that the respondent Chaltibai's signatur~s were obtained on the document after it was explained to her, the document was in English and she was not conversant with that language. Two other drafts were made for the application for this succession certifica~e which (1) (1837) 6 AD. & E. 469; (1837) I12 E.R. 179. (2) [1935) P. 120. (3) (1902) 30 I.A. II.f. _r958_ _**Shri**_ _**Kisho,i -!-al**_ v. _**Mst. Chaltibai**_ _Kapur_ _]._ 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. ###### are both on the record. In these two drafts Badrina rayan is shown as" guardian uncle" of the appellant Kishorilal. Although Badrinarayan was reluctant to do so he had to admit the existence of these two drafts ###### but addQd that he had instructed Jivan Singh a servant of Lakshminarayan not to file the application till after he had consulted a Mr. P. S. Deo, a pleader and after he had consulted him the application was filed but with Chaltibai as guardian. This document in para. 3 sets out the names of the relations of the deceased. They were the widow Chaltibai, the daughter Jamnabai, the brother Badrinarayan and the four ###### sons of Badrinarayan. In this column the appellant Kishorilal was not shown as a relative of the deceased. ###### In a later paragraph it was stated that the petitioner i. e. the appellant Kishorilal claimed the certificate as the adopted son of the deceased Lakshminarayan. On the finding of the High Court that-the document was not explained to the respondent Chaltibai it cannot be ###### said that :it established any admission, much less estoppel. This document did not contain any admission which would necessarily show •that Kishorilal appellant was adopted by Lakshminarayan during his lifetime. The next document relied upon is a bahi entry in a Mathura Panda's book dated July 21; 1944. The story is that the respondent Chaltibai visited Mathura on her way back from Badrinarayan and the Panda of the family made an entry in his bahi after making enquiries from her showing the appellant Kishorilal as the adopted son. The entry is signed by her. This document is contradicted by another entry in the same Panda's bahi which is stated to have been made at the instance of Mohanlal, the eldest brother of the appellant on March 2, 1947, about 2! years after the pre###### vious entry. In the later entry the appellant Kisho rilal was shown as the son of Badrinarayan and not the adopted son of Lakshminarayan. Whether the docu###### ment-the previous Bahi entry-was at the instance of the respondent Chaltibai or not is not material because it does not advance the case of the appellant. This document also does not show that the appellant (1) S.C.R. SUPH,EME COURT REPORTS, 709 ' was adopted by . Lakshminarayan. Then there is a document _adhilcarpatra_ dated May 4, 1946, by .which a dispute between the appellant and the respomlent was ##### referred to the arbitration of 7 persons. It was signed by the appellant and the respondent and it wil,s therein recited : ' "Relations between us mother and son have ##### become strained in connection with some mat~ers. It is very necessary to remove the same". ###### In another portion of the document also words used are " between us the mother and the son •!. This document also was not accepted by the High Court as containing an admission because even at the time of its execution the respondent Chaltibai was <:lenying the adoption ofKishorilal which was proved by the testimony of two of the panches (arbitrators), them##### selves. It cannot be said therefore that this document represented correct state of affairs but even if it did it cannot be treated as an admission by the respondent that the appellant was adopted by Lakshroinarayan. _Shri_ _Rishori La._ v. _Ms/._ _Chaltibai_ _Kapur]._ Lasqy there is the deed of sale dated Janu,ary 24, 1938, wherein the respondent had recited tbat the ###### appellant Kishorilal was adopted by her husbaind "in accordance with his wishes and consent of the, entire family". This recital negatives the whole case of the appellant as set up in his written statement that he was adopted by Lakshminarayan during his lifotimc. ###### In his written statement he had only pleaded his having been placed in the lap of the respondent Chaltibai as confirmatory of his adoption by Lalrnhmi narayan. The documents mentioned above do not support the plea that the appellant had been' led to alter his position through a belief in any misrepresentation made by the respondent Chaltibai as to his having been adopted by Lakshminarnyan. And he cannot be allowed to set up a case different to his ca8e in the written statement .nor can he be allowed to prdvc his title as an adopted son on such differnnt case' Sec _Tayammaul_ v. _Sashachalla_ _Naiker_ (1), _Gopeel,p,l_ v. _M itssamat_ _Ohandraolee_ _Buhajee_ ( [2] ). The correc~ rule of estoppel applicable in the case of adoption is tihat it (1) (1865) 10 1\1.l.A. 429. (2) (1872) Supp. I.A. ~31. 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _**Sh,.i**_ _**Kishori**_ _**Lal**_ v. _**.Jl.Ist.**_ _**Chaltibai**_ _Rapur_ _]._ ##### does not confer status. It shuts out the mouth of ###### certain persons if they try to deny the adoption, but where both parties are equally conversant with the true state of facts this doctrine has no application . Two further facts which the appellant's counsel relied upon to support his plea of estoppel were: (1) his being allowed to perform the obsequies of Lakshmina.rayan and (2) the performance of his marriage by #### the respondent Chaltibai as his adoptive mother. If the adoption itself is disproved these two facts will not ###### add to the efficacy of the plea of estoppel which otherwise is inapplicable: _Dhanraj_ v. _Sonabai_ ('). The appellant relied on _Rani Dharam Kunwar_ v. _Balwant Singh_ (') which was a case where the adoptive mother, the Rani had herself in a previous proceeding pleaded that she had authority to adopt and the Privy ###### Council were of the opinion that the question could )le decided on its own facts without recourse to the doctrine of estoppel, although they did not differ from the view of the courts below as to the a. pplicability of ###### the doctrine of estoppel. That was not a case of the parties being equally conversant with the true facts and further there was a finding that the person claim###### ing to be the adopted son was as a. matter of fact adopted. In our view there is no substance in the plea. of estoppel raised by the appellant. Whatever the acts of the respondent Cha.ltiba.i, whatever her admissions and whatever the course of conduct she pursued _qua_ the appellant Kishorilal they could not amount to estoppel as both parties were ###### equally conversant with the true facts. In none of the four documents which are signed by her, is there ###### any admission that Kishorilal was adopted by her husband during his lifetime. On the other hand in the sale deed dated January 24, 1938, she recited an adoption by herself which is not the adoption that the appellant relied upon in support of his case. The other documents i .. e. the application for succession certificate and the arbitration agreement and the entry in the Panda's bahi are all consistent with the recital in the sale deed and do not establish the case (1) (1925) 52 I.A. 231, 243. (2) (1912) 39 I.A. 142, 148. ###### (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 711 ##### of the appellant as to the adoption by Lakshmi-,_ narayan himself. . _Shri_ _Rishori_ _Lal_ ##### It was then argued for the appellant that t}).e course v. ###### of conduct of the respondent and her various, acts of Mst. Cltaltibai admission and the treatment of the appellant as an adopted son by the respondent and other members of _l\apur_ _]._ ###### the family gave rise to a strong inference that he (the appellant) was adopted as alleged by him 'and the _l\apur_ _]._ evidence should have been so appraised as to support ###### that inference. Particular emphasis was placed by counsel for the appellant on the fact that soon after the death of Lakshminarayan it was given 011t that the appellant was his adopted son and this a$sertion was continuously made in many transactions and documents. These documents, the course of conduct of Chaltibai respondent in treating the appellant as the adopted son of Lakshminarayan and the length of the appellant's possession of Lakshminavayan's ###### estate, it was contended, showed that he w,as the ##### adopted son of Lakshminarayan. It was also submit###### ted that the admissions shifted the onus on to the respondent on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed ' to be so and until the presumption was rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to be established : _Ch,andra_ _Kunwar_ v. _Narpat Singh_ (1). The question of onus loses its efficacy because it was never objected to in the courts below and evidence having been led bif the parties, at this stage the court has to adjudic$.te on the material before it. And admissions a.re not conclusive, and unless they constitute estoppel, the maker is at liberty to prove that they were mistaken or were untrue: _Trinidad Asphalt Company_ - v. _Coryat_ (2). ###### Admissions are mere pieces of evidence and if the truth of the matter is known to both parties the principle stated in _Chandra Kunwar's_ _case_ (1) would be inapplicable. And in this case there is no admi~sion by the respondent of the appellant's adoption by her ###### husband in his lifetime. Such admissions that there are cannot help the case of the appellant or support a different appraisal of the evidence of the factum of (1) (1906) 34 I. A. _27._ (2) [1896] A. C. 587. #### -· 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1959] Supp. _I95_ _[8 ]_ adoption or establish an adoption which is otherwise _SArl KlsAori Lal_ disproved. ###### v. In order to properly appreciate the effect of these Ms1. Ch•ltib•i admissions it is necessary to consider the circum stances under which these various documents were _J{apur_ _f._ executed and the acts done or the admissions made. At the death of Lakshminar~yan the respondent was 24 or 25 years old surrounded by the family of Badrinarayan whose interest it was to foist an adoption on ###### her. Her own relations do not seem to have taken much interest in her or her affairs. She was thus a widow, lonely and dependent upon her husband's relations. The trial Court described her as a pardanashin ###### woman. Although Badrinarayan himself denied that he was managing the estate of Lakshminarayan, Narsingdas one of the appellant's witnesses stated ###### that Badrinarayan was doing so and Badrinarayan admitted that he looked after the court cases though ##### at the request of the respondent. It is with this back###### ground that the evidence has to be considered and weighed. Any admission made by a widow situated as the respondent was would necessarily carry very little weight: _Padamlal_ v. _Fakira Debya_ ( [1] ). Besides the four documents above mentioned the appellant Kishorilal relied on the following facts as instances of admissions and conduct of the respondent Chaltibai. The first is the performance of obsequies by the appellant and the subsequent taking of the appellant in her lap by the respondent. The mere fa.ct of performance of these funeral rites does not necessarily support an adoption. The performance of these rites frequently varies according to the circumstances of each case and the view and usage of different families. The evidence led by the appellant him###### self shows that in the absence of the son, junior relations like a younger brother or a younger nephew performs the obeequial ceremonies. As was pointed out by the Privy Council in _Tayamal's case_ (') the performance of funeral rites will not sustain an adop###### tion unless it clearly appears that the adoption itself was performed under circumstances as would render it (I) A.I.R. 1931 (P.C.) 84. (2) (1865) IO M.I.A. 429. ###### (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 713 ###### perfectly valid. But then it was submitted that the taking by the respondent of the appellant in her lap _Sh•i_ _Kishori Lal_ 1 coupled with the performance of obsequies was a clear v. proof of her acceptance of the appellant's adoption by _Mst. Challibai_ her deceased husband. This again is slender b~sis for any such inference as Badrinarayan himself, stated _Kapur]._ ###### that it was not customary amongst them ]or the widow to take the adopted Ron in her lap and in this particular case it was only done as she desired it. As proof of adoption by Lakshminarayan this piece of evidence has no value because that is not the case of the appellant; and as showing confirmatory process ###### it is valueless in the absence of evidence sufficient to establish the adoption by Lakshminarayan which in this case is lacking. ' 'fhe appellant's residing with Lakshminarayap. after his adoption and after the death of Lakshminarayan with the respondent was next relied upon by counsel for -the appellant. As we have already said the appellant had not proved that he was residing with Lakshminara###### yan after his adoptfon ; on the contrary the evidence shows that he left Tirora soon after his alleged adop _Kapur]._ ###### tion and did not return till after the death of Lakshmi- narayan. And then again he returned to Raipur and returned to Tirora after about four or five months. ###### The mere fa.ct that he continued to reside with the respondent since would not in this case prove adoption, because in the school register he was shown as ###### the llOD of Badrinarayan and continued to be so shown upto June 30, 1937, and mere residence of a young nephew with a widowed and young aunt is no,proof of adoption by her husband in the absence of satisfac. tory evidence of the factum of adoption. The appellant, it was next contended, was in posses###### sion of the properties of Lakshminarayan after the latter's death and his name was brought on the record in all civil and revenue proceedings. As we have said above, Badrinaraya.n took over the management of the estate of Lakshmina.rayan and was looking after #### the conduct of the court cases. If in those cir'cumstances the mutations were made in the name of the 90 714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _**Shri Kishori Lal**_ v. _**Mst.**_ _**Chaltibai**_ ###### appellant or suits were brought in his name or even if he took out licences in his name would be matters of ##### small consequence. It is not shown that at the time of the mutations the respondent was present or was represented or the suits were brought with her know###### ledge and it appears that all this was done because the management of the estate as well as the conduct of the cases in cou,rts was in the hands of Ba.dri###### na.ra.ya.n. Then the fa.ct that after he attained majority, the appellant was managing the estate and was recognised by, everybody as its owner also is of little consequence because as far as the respondent was concerned somebody had to manage the property, whether it was Ba.drina.ra.yan or the appellant Kisho##### rila.l to her it ma.de no difference. It may also be mentioned here that in the mutation order passed by the Tehsilda.r on April 8, 1936, which related to 3As. ###### share of Monza. Ja.ba.rtola. the mutation entry was made in favour of the respondent and not in the name of the appellant and in the ja.ma.ba.ndi papers relating to different holdings in some places the appellant is shown under the guardianship of his mother Cha.ltiba.i and in other places under the guardianship of Ba.dri· na.ra.ya.n as his uncle. A great deal of stress was la.id by the appellant on ###### the fa.ct that his marriage was performed by the res- pondent Chaltiba.i and she purporj;ed to do so as his. adoptive mother. The performance of the marriage itself does not prove adoption, which is otherwise disproved, and as a. circumstance supporting the infer###### ence of adoption set up by the appellant it is wholly neutral. At the most the circumstances relied upon by the appellant may be acts of acquiescence attributed to the ###### respondent but they would be important only if they were brought to bear upon the question which depend#### ed upon preponderance of evidence. If the facts are once . ascertained, presumption arising from con###### duct cannot establish ~right which the facts them- selves disprove : See Tayamal' B case ( [1] ) at p. 433. Presumptions cannot sustain an adoption even though (1) (1865) 10 M.I.A. 42g. _Kapu,_ _J._ (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 715 ###### it might have been acquiesced in by all concerned when as in the present case, the evidence shows that the adoption did not take place. Another fact on ###### which the appellant relied was that on October 30, 1933, Badrinarayan, his wife and his sons par.titioned ###### their family property. That is not an act of the respondent and cannot affect her rights if they are otherwise enforceable. ###### On the whole we are of the opm1on that the judgment of the High Court is sound and that this, appeal should be dismissed with costs. _Appeal dismissed._ _Shri Kishori Lal_ v. _M_ _st. Challibai_ _Kapur]._ _December 3•._ ASA RAM ###### _v._ THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFF ARN A(jAR ### (S. R. DAS, c. J., BHAGW ATI, B. P. SINHA, ###### SuBBA RAO and K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) _Conflict of_ _Statutes-Two_ _statutes conferring_ _same_ _p0cµier_ _on_ _two_ _different bodies-Construction-'Committee' and 'Panchayat', if_ _identical_ _in_ _meanning-Power_ _to_ _regulate,_ _if_ _includes power_ _to_ _require taking out of_ _licence-U._ _P. District Boards Act_ (U. _P. X_ _of_ r922), _ss._ 93(3), ro6 _and_ r74(r)(k)-U. _P. Town Areas Act_ (U. _P._ _II of_ r9r4) _as_ _amended_ _in r934, s. 26(a)._ The ·appellant was running machines with the aid of power in a locality which was admittedly within the Jalalabad Town Area. He did not take out a licence for running the machines as required by the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws fra~ed by the respondent, the District Board Muzaffarnagar, .under s. 174(1)(k) read withs. 106 of the U. P. District Boards Aot, and was prosecuted by the respondent. The appellant contended that the bye-laws did not apply to the town area and it w~s not necessary for him to take out a licence. Section 174(1)(k) cof the District Boards Act and s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act both provided for the regulation of offensive trades and admittedly the trade carried on by the appellant was an offensive trade. _The_ District Boards had the power under s. 174(1)(k) to frame bye-laws for rural areas which included town areas. Buts. 93(3) of the District Boards Act took away the power of the District