Adopted Son Becomes Coparcener In Adopter’s Family, Loses Right Of Succession In Genitive Family Properties: Karnataka HC Reiterates
|The Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench has reiterated that after adoption, the adopted son becomes a coparcener in the adopter’s family and that he loses the right of succession in his genitive family properties.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge which came to be confirmed by the Principal District Judge whereby the suit for partition by the appellant was dismissed.
A Single Bench of Justice C.M. Joshi observed, “… this Court in the case of M. Krishna Vs. M. Ramachandra and another has also reiterated the view that if the adoptee was the member of the joint family at the time of adoption, his rights in the joint family property extinguish unless, he possessed those properties by way of partition. It was observed that on adoption the adoptee gets transplanted in a family in which he is adopted with the same rights as that of a natural born son and as such, transfer of the adopted child severs all his right with the family from which he was taken in adoption. It was categorically held that, he loses right of succession in the genitive family properties.”
The Bench said that there are umpteen number of decisions which laid down that after adoption, the adoptee becomes a coparcener in the adopter’s family.
Advocate Manvendra Reddy appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate Sachin M. Mahajan appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, a father left behind the properties and had executed an Adoption Deed in favour of two persons but the plaintiff, i.e., the genitive child of the said father contended that the adoption was bad in law. The plaintiff stated that soon after the death of his father, he demanded his 1/5th share in the suit properties and the defendants i.e., the other genitive children denied the same and as such, he was constrained to file the suit for partition.
It was further contended that the alleged adoption being in the year 1974, at which time, he was aged 24 years, the same was without his consent and was prohibited under the provisions of Section 10 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff approached the First Appellate Court which dismissed his appeal. Therefore, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “… a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. Rathan and others vs. Chikkamuth, has relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Devgonda Raygonda Patil Since deceased by his heir Hirabai Devgonda Patil vs. Shamgonda Raygonda Patil since deceased by his heirs Trishala Shambonda Patil and others and held that if there is coparcenary or joint family in existence in the family of birth on the date of adoption then the adoptee cannot be said to have any vested property.”
The Court said that if it accepts the contention of the counsel for the appellant, it would lead to a situation whereby an adopted son would continue to be exercising rights as a coparcener in the genitive family as well as the adoptive family and hence, such a contention at any rate cannot hold good.
“… when the decision of the Apex Court in Vasant and another Vs. Dattu's case has clarified the matter, and when the Shastric Law also do not approve the rights of a adopted person in the genitive family, the views of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yarlagadda Nayadamma's case cannot bind this Court to hold that the plaintiff is entitled for rights in the suit schedule properties of the coparcenary, regarding which he had ceased to be member”, added the Court.
The Court also observed that according to the Mitákshará law, a son acquires by birth a right to the ancestral property in the possession of the father, and an undivided coparcenery interest is vested in him as a member of the ‘family corporation’.
“The vesting, however, is imperfect as the interest is liable to variation and also to extinction by reason of any subsequent disqualification. The interest is acquired in the character of a member of the family, and when that character is lost by adoption, the interest also ceases”, further observed the Court.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the adoption of the plaintiff to the family is valid and that he cannot take shelter under Section 12(b) of the 1956 Act, to claim share in the suit schedule properties.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title- Bheesmaraja v. Radhabai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC-K:5412)