CASE TITLE:
Banabai and others Vs. Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors v Parwatibai and ors
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
7th April, 2022
JUDGES:
Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni
PARTIES:
Banabai and others Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors (Appellant)
Parwatibai and ors (Respondent)
SUBJECT
This case analyses the question of whether adopted children are entitled to inheritance of adoptive parents.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956 states that an adopted child is deemed to be the child of his adoptive parents from the date of adoption, and all ties to his natural family are severed.
- Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act provides for the 'General Rules of Succession in the Case of Males' .
- Section 15 of The Hindu Succession Act, proposes a definite and uniform scheme of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate. Section 16 of the Act also specifies the order of succession and the manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.
BRIEF FACTS
- The Court ended a property dispute in which an adoptive son sold properties belonging to his adoptive mother's late husband.
- Kausalyabai adopted Shivaji in the year 1973. Sopanrao, her husband, died in 1965. Parwatibai was their only child.Both, Shivaji's mother and daughter opposed Shivaji's claim to the property.
- Shivaji contended that he should be treated as the child of his adoptive parents. He claimed that, with the exception of blood ties for the purpose of marriage, all of the child's ties in the natural family would be severed as of the date of adoption, and he claimed the same right, privilege, and obligation in the adoptive family.
QUESTIONS RAISED
- Is the principle of relation back applicable in the case of a son adopted after the death of the adoption lady's husband?
- Is the relation back principle applicable in this case, in light of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956?
- Whether the lower courts, if any, made an error in determining the parties' share in accordance with sections 8 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellants' counsel vehemently argued that even though defendant No.1 Shivaji was adopted in 1973, he should be considered a child of his adoptive parents for all purposes. He contended that, with the exception of blood ties for the purpose of marriage, all ties of the child in the natural family will be severed from the date of adoption.
- He also claimed that all of the child's ties would be established in the adoptive family as of the date of adoption. For all intents and purposes, the adopted child is considered the adopter's child, and his position is that of a natural born son. He has the same rights and privileges as and obligations as the family.
- Hiralal v. Revenue Board
The learned counsel for the appellants, relied on the said decision to argue that when the widow of a co-parcener adopts a son, the adopted son becomes a co-parcener with the adoptive father's surviving co-parceners and thus has the same interest in the property as his adoptive father would have had he been alive. The child adopted by the co-widow parcener's became the child of the deceased co-parcener on the date of the co-death. As a result, he vehemently argued that her adopted son be given the same share as her adopted mother.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel for respondent No.1/original plaintiff contended that even assuming for the sake of argument that Shivaji/original defendant is the adopted son of Kausalyabai/original plaintiff No.1, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/original plaintiff He might not get an equal share. He claimed that plaintiff No.1's (Kausalyabai's) husband, Sopanrao, died in 1965, leaving plaintiff No.1 as a widow and plaintiff No. 2 as a daughter. They each received one-half of the suit property left behind by Sopanrao.
- Shivaji was allegedly adopted by Kausalyabai in 1973, he claimed. He claimed that the succession begins in 1965, shortly after the death of Sopanrao, the father of plaintiff No.2 and the husband of plaintiff No.1. Even after his so-called adoption in 1973, the adopted son receives no share. At most, he may receive a share of Kausalyabai's/original plaintiff No.1's one-half share after her death. In that case, Parwatibai, as a daughter, and Shivaji, as an adopted son, would each receive an equal share of Kausalyabai's share. He contended that the theory of relation back is inapplicable in this case because the alleged adoption occurred in 1973.
- He stated, citing Hiralal vs. Board of Revenue, that if the widow of a co-parcener adopts a son, the adopted son becomes a co-parcener with the adoptive father's surviving co-parceners and thus has the same interest in the property as his adoptive father would have had he been alive. The child adopted by the co-widow parcener's became the child of the deceased co-parcener on the date of the death of co-parcener.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The High Court noted that section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 abolished the principle of relation back as a result of adoption.
- The single judge regarded it as an admitted position that Kausalyabai's husband died in 1965, many years before the adoption of her son Shivaji. Shivaji was adopted by her on March 24, 1993, according to the adoption deed. As a result, it is clear that her adopted son Shivaji was not present when her husband died intestate in 1965. The succession began for the first time in 1965.
- According to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Kausalyabai, as widow, and Parwatibai, as daughter, would each receive one-half interest in the suit property left behind by Sopanrao.
- Furthermore, the court stated that since Kausalyabai died during the pendency of the suit in 2013, her share would pass to her daughter Parwatibai and adopted son Shivaji. In accordance with Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. Given this legal situation, plaintiff No. 2/daughter Parwatibai would receive her share of 12 from her mother's share of 14, for a total share of 34 (112 + 14), whereas adopted son Shivaji would receive a 14 share in the property.
- The judge also declared Shivaji's sale deeds null and void to the extent of Parvatibai's 3/4th share.
CONCLUSION
Adopted children have the same inheritance rights as biological children, and they are entitled to a share of their adoptive parents' property. As a result, if the adoptive parent dies intestate, the adopted child inherits the same property rights as the biological child. However, the child loses the right to stake a claim in the property of his or her biological parents or the associated coparcenary property after adoption, according to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956. However, if the biological parents want to leave such property or a portion of it to the child, they can.
Learn Practical Aspects of Family Laws HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
