Adoption

IF he is adopted to another family such child will loose all its rights over the parent's property.  So he cannot claim an;y rights over the ancestral property of his zenetic family

IF he is adopted to another family such child will loose all its rights over the parent's property.  So he cannot claim an;y rights over the ancestral property of his zenetic family

hi

thanks 4 your reply but, i mean as i mentioned in case 1, why he could not ask after getting major.  coz when he was given in adoption he was minor and even he could not understand what was happening around him, but when  he attains an age he could better understand what was done with him, can he opt for his property rights in natural family.????

As after adoption all the ties of the child with his biological family gets severed. Therefore, he cannot ask for share in that family. Though it is true that the kid is minor at that time and do not understand what was done to him, however, we should understand that only minor children are given in adoption and not major ones. So, if the adoption is valid then, no share in the earlier family property can be claimed.

As you r talking about adopted child to be minor or major, it is complete ridiculous talking madam, every adoption has to be registered to be validated. & our H A & M act 1956, sec. 15 does not allow any body i.e. adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renouncing his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth

very good knowledge of adoption

Thanks all for ur replies...

Please refer this,

Sec. 12b of H A & M Act,1956

Right in property after adoption

An adoptee can take only that property to his adoptive family from his birth family which is already vested in the adoptee prior to adoption by inheritance or by partition in the natural family or as sole surviving coparcener as he becomes its absolute owner. Clause (b) of the proviso to section 12 cannot be attracted when the property has not been vested in him and is still a fluctuating coparcener property; Devgonda Raygonda Patil v. Shamgonda Raygonda Patil, AIR 1992 Bom 189.