Succession:
Whether the sons of adoptee (who were born prior to his adoption) are entitled to inherit the property of the adoptive family of their father – Held: Succession in the present case in the facts of the case has to be decided in accordance with Hindu Succession Act and not as per Hindu Law –There is no provision in the Act denying the right of succession to the natural born son of an adoptee father – All the children either born before or after adoption of their father, in terms of s. 3(a) and (e) and Schedule of the Act, being class I heirs, have right to inherit the property of their father – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s. 3(a) and (e), Schedule. Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
s. 4 – The Act has overriding effect over all the texts, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before commencement of the Act. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Hindu Succession Act overrides all text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act. Since the succession has opened after the death of ‘L’ in January 1987, therefore, succession has to be in accordance with the Act and not as per Hindu law as all text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law prior to commencement of the Act have ceased to have any effect unless expressly provided for in the said Act. [Paras 12 and 13][640-B, D-E]
2. Since there is no provision of denying the rights of succession to the natural born son of an adoptee father, therefore, the succession will be in terms of the provisions of the Act alone. The three sons and the appellant-daughter are born to ‘L’ and his wife. They are agnates and related by full blood in terms of Section 3(a) and 3(e) of the Act. As per the Schedule to the Act, the son and the daughter of a deceased Hindu male are class I heirs. [Paras 15 and 16][641-B-C]
3. In view of the provisions of the Act which do not make any distinction between the son born to a father prior or after adoption of his father and that there is no provision which bars the natural born son to inherit the property of his natural father, therefore, the High Court has rightly upheld the rights of the sons of ‘L’. There was a full blood relationship between the three sons and the daughter who was born after adoption. All the children of ‘L’ are entitled to inherit the property of their natural father and mother in accordance with the provisions of the Act as succession has opened after the death of ‘L’ in 1987 and subsequently the mother in the year 1992. [Para 21][645-D-G]
Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo (1981) 4 SCC 613 : [1982] SCR 417; Bhanwar Singh v. Puran & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 87 : [2008] 2 SCR 775 – relied on.
Martand Jiwajee Patil & Anr. v. Narayan Krishna Gumast-Patil & Anr. AIR 1939 Bom 305 – approved.
Kalgavda Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tamangavda Patil & Anr. ILR (1909) 33 Bom 669 – not approved. Tewari Raghuraj Chandra & Ors. v. Rani Subhadra Kunwar & Ors. AIR 1928 PC 87; Kausalyabai W/o Jagdeorao v. Devkabai W/o Jaiwantrao Deshmukh (1978) 16 Mh.L.J. 357– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.