"Child Ceases To Be Coparcener Of Birth Family On Adoption; Gives Up Rights In Ancestral Property"- Telangana HC Clarifies
A Telangana High Court Bench of Justice P Naveen Rao, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka has observed that on adoption by another family, the adoptee becomes coparcener of the adoptive family and ceases to have any connection with family of his birth.
In that vein, it was further said that "on adoption the child ceases to be coparcener of family of his/her birth and foregoes interest in the ancestral property in the family of his birth. Only if a partition has taken place before the adoption and property is allotted to his share or self acquired, obtained by will, inherited from his natural father or other ancestor or collateral which is not coparcenary property held along with other coparceners and property held by him as sole surviving coparcener, he carries that property with him to the adoptive family with corresponding obligations".
Senior Counsel Vedula Srinivas appeared for the appellant, while Counsel E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, among others, appeared for the respondents.
The dispute originated in 1977 when a suit was filed in a civil court regarding the partition and possession of the property. The plaintiff, who was adopted by his maternal uncle, filed the suit to claim a share in his biological family's property upon discovering his adoption.
The trial court, following a precedent set by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yaralagada Nayudamma vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, ruled that the plaintiff still had a share in the ancestral property of his biological family even after adoption. An appeal was filed against this decision but was dismissed.
Subsequently, a revision was filed against the appeal, which was also dismissed. In response to these orders, the defendant in the original suit filed an appeal, arguing that the judgment in the Nayudamma case by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was legally flawed.
The Division Bench before which the appeal was listed disagreed with the reasoning in the Nayudamma case. Subsequently, the Chief Justice referred the matter to a Full Bench for a definitive ruling.
The issue at hand was whether the undivided interest in the property of a coparcener will not, on his adoption, be divested, but will continue to vest in him even after his adoption.
The Court analyzed a catena of judgments, the relevant Hindu law, and the Adoption Act.
Subsequently, it was observed that "it is beyond pale of doubt that on adoption by another family, the adoptee becomes coparcener of adoptive family and ceases to have any connection with family of his birth. He/she transplants into the adoptive family. He/she is not required to observe pollution on birth or death of any member in the family of his/her birth. He/she ceases to perform funeral ceremonies and losses all rights of inheritance as completely as if he/she had never born".
Further, the Court noted that it was evident from Section 12 of the Adoption Act that the adoptee transposes into the adoptive family, severs all ties with the family of birth, and becomes a coparcener of the adoptive family.
Holding that the Benches did not appreciate a finer distinction, the Court observed that "The fundamental principle to remember in Mitakshara law on Hindu coparcener is that though by birth a coparcener gets interest in the coparcenary property, but it is unspecified and fluctuates depending on addition or deletion of coparceners. The right crystallizes only when partition takes place. Therefore, the word ‘vested’ employed in proviso (b) to Section 12 assumes significance. What is saved by proviso (b) is property already ‘vested’ in a person in the family of his birth before his adoption in the manner stated above, but not the unspecified coparcenary interest. This finer distinction was not appreciated by the Division Bench of this court in Nayudamma and some other High Courts".
Cause Title: Anumolu Nageswara Rao v. A.V.R.L.Narasimha Rao
