Adopted son has no right over genitive family properties: HC

BENGALURU: An adopted son cannot continue to exercise rights as a coparcener in his genitive family, the Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka high court has observed in a recent judgment.
Dismissing the regular second appeal filed by Bheesmaraja, a resident of Secunderabad, Justice CM Joshi has pointed out that in M Krishna vs M Ramachandra and in another case, the HC had already held that on adoption, the adoptee gets transplanted into the family that adopts him with the same rights as that of a natural-born son, and such transfer of the adopted child severs all his rights with the family from which he was taken in adoption.
 

“It was categorically heldthat he loses the right of succession in genitive family properties,” the judge added.
Son of Pandurangappa Ellur and Radhabai, Bheesmaraja was given in adoption to Hyderabad-based couple P Vishnu and P Shantabai. The adoption deed was executed on December 22, 1974; at that time, Bheesmaraja was 24 years old. His biological father died in 2004.
Thereafter, in the very same year, he moved the Raichur court for partition. He argued that the adoption was without his consent and was prohibited under the provisions of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. His mother, sister and brother resisted his claim, saying he was a consenting party to the adoption, and the suit was dismissed on December 10, 2007. OnJanuary 22, 2010, Bheesmaraja’s appeal, too, was dismissed.
Challenging both orders, he moved the HC, reiterating he is a coparcener in his genitive family and, therefore, had an existing right in family properties.

On the other hand, his mother, brother and sisters, and the children of his deceased brother, Ashokraj, argued that in the Arya Vysya community, to which they belong, adoption of a person aged more than 15 is allowed.

“If we accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant herein, it would lead to a situation whereby an adopted son would continue to be exercising rights as a coparcener in the genitive family as well as the adoptive family. Therefore, this contention at any rate cannot hold good,” the judge noted.