Except Adoptive Parents And Adoptive Son, Others Have No Locus Standi To Question Validity Of Adoption Deed: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court observed that except the adoptive parents and adoptive son, others have no locus standi to question the validity of the adoption deed.

In that context, the Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that, "the plaintiff cannot question the adoption and validity of the adoption deed and the plaintiff has no locus standi to question the same."

Counsel GB Nandish Gowda appeared for the appellants, while Counsel Sri Sagar BB, along with others, appeared for the respondents.

The plaintiff, a resident of Nidagatta Village, claimed ownership of ancestral agricultural lands. These properties were inherited from his father, Karigowda. A release deed in 1943 allocated specific lands to the plaintiff's half-brother, T. Thammaiah. After Thammaiah's death in 1954, the plaintiff became the sole surviving co-parcener.

The dispute arose when the defendant, claiming to be Thammaiah's adopted son, sought succession rights. The plaintiff argued that an adoption deed dated 30.05.1954 was invalid, emphasizing that the defendant was a minor at the time and not represented by a guardian. The plaintiff, being the half-brother, asserted his entitlement to the properties.

The defendant, however, contended that the adoption was valid, supported by the adoption deed (Ex.D2) and asserted authority from Thammaiah. The plaintiff raised concerns about the lack of details regarding the adoption ceremony and individuals present.

The Trial Court, accepting the plaintiff's contentions, declared him the absolute owner of the properties, dismissing the validity of the adoption deed. The defendant's appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

The High Court observed that, "when all the material on record discloses that plaintiff was not in possession of the property and when there is a clear admission on the part of P.W.1 that plaintiff was not in possession and Nanjamma was in possession, however an attempt is made to claim that he was in joint possession, though nothing is placed on record to prove the same. Hence, both the Courts committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties and both the Courts failed to take note of the revenue documents and subsequent to the death of her husband, the revenue documents were standing in the name of Nanjamma and that too, in the year 1989, khatha has been transferred in the name of Nanjamma and also there was an admission that she was in possession of the properties after the death of her husband and thereafter, she also died in the year 1995 and immediately after 1995, present suit is filed."

It was further noted that, "when the document is registered in the year 1954 and the sale deeds were executed in the year 1956 in favour of the prospective purchasers, the very contention of the plaintiff that he came to know about the same when claim was made based on the adoption deed cannot be accepted and registration of the document itself is a notice to the all and both the Courts failed to take note of the fact that suit is filed after lapse of 40 years of adoption and erroneously comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and the very approach of both the Courts is erroneous and committed an error in declaring the ownership right in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties in favour of the plaintiff and failed to consider Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as well as both oral and documentary evidence available on record".

Subsequently, it was held that both the Courts committed an error in rejecting the claim of defendant No.1 that he is an adopted son and failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence and after a long time i.e., 42 years, strict burden of proof for an adoption cannot be insisted when presumption is available under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Appearances:

Appellants: Counsel GB Nandish Gowda

Respodents: Counsels Sagar BB, Sathish M Doddamani, AGA MV Adhithi

Cause Title: MG Purushotham & Ors. vs NK Srinivasan & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgments