HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Monday clarified a significant legal aspect related to adoption. As per the court’s ruling, when a child is adopted, it no longer possesses the status of a coparcener in its biological family, and consequently loses any right to claim ancestral property within that family.
However, if a partition has already taken place prior to the adoption and the child has been allotted a specific share of the property through self-acquisition, inheritance, or will, they retain that property and the corresponding obligations within their adoptive family.
The ruling was made by the full bench comprising Justice P Naveen Rao, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka. The court reached this conclusion by considering opinions expressed in authoritative texts such as Mayne’s Hindu Law and Mulla on Principles of Hindu Law, as well as references to decisions made by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.
The bench was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Anumolu Nageswara Rao from Khammam district, who argued that upon adoption, a person severs all connections with their birth family and forfeits any right to claim a share in the ancestral property of their birth family.
The LPA originated from a judgment and decree issued by a senior civil judge in Khammam, concerning the partition and possession of certain properties. Anumolu Nageswara Rao, the appellant and defendant no. 1 in the case, was joined by other defendants — the sisters, mother, and grandmother of the plaintiff.
Vedula Srinivas, representing the appellant, contended that upon adoption, a person becomes a coparcener of the adoptive family and severs all ties with their birth family. He argued that the established legal principle applies only when the person has already acquired property within their birth family before adoption. Interpreting the proviso in any other manner would undermine the effect of the main provision.
Srinivas further stated that a coparcener holds an interest in the ancestral property of their birth family, but they can only obtain a definite right to a portion of the joint family property through a partition. If the adoption takes place before such an event, the person becomes a coparcener of the adoptive family and forfeits any interest in the property of their birth family. One cannot simultaneously be a coparcener of two families, and without coparcenary status, one cannot claim a share in ancestral property.
EVVS Ravi Kumar, representing the respondent, argued that the explanation to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act must be read in conjunction with proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Adoptions Act. According to his interpretation, even after adoption by the adoptive family, the person retains the right to a share in the ancestral property of their birth family.
After careful consideration of all arguments presented by the counsels, the full bench unequivocally stated that upon adoption, a child ceases to be a coparcener in their birth family and relinquishes any claim to ancestral property within that family.