Baptism Certificate Alone Won't Suffice Necessity Of A Valid Adoption By Christians: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Regular First Appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the Principal Sub-Judge, Alappuzha.;

The Kerala High Court held that a Baptism Certificate alone would not suffice the necessity of a valid adoption by the Christians. 

The Court held thus in a Regular First Appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the Principal Sub-Judge, Alappuzha.

A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, "Baptism certificate alone showing the name of adopted parents would not suffice the necessity of a valid adoption and long association of a member of the adopted family would not also confer status of adopted child on a person."

The Bench elucidated that there is no prohibition in Canon Law for having a valid adoption but there is no personal law in India applicable to Christians recognizing adoption.

"But a valid adoption made in accordance with the civil law as applicable to the child adopted and the adopted parents is recognized by Canon Law. The essentials of a valid adoption are capacity of the adopter, capacity of the adoptee, capacity of the giver, consent and compliance with the civil law”, it added.

Advocate George Joseph represented the Appellants while Advocate Roy Chacko represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Plaintiffs i.e., the Respondents who were the siblings of the deceased man, filed a Suit claiming partition of Plaint Schedule properties between them and the Defendants (Nos. 2-4) i.e., the Appellants, that belonged to the deceased, after his death in the year 1990. Since one of the Defendants (No. 5) purchased a portion of the property, he also got arrayed as a party in the Suit. On appearance, he filed a Written Statement claiming right on the strength of a Sale Deed. The Appellants were set ex-parte.

The contentions in the Plaint were opposed by the first Defendant via Written Statement and additional 6th Defendant also filed a Written Statement, denying rights of the Plaintiffs/Respondents and Defendants/Appellants over the properties. He claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased and first Defendant. The Trial Court raised necessary issues and after analysis of the case, it granted preliminary decree for partition after protecting the right of the 5th Defendant. This was challenged before the High Court.

Points For Consideration

The following points arose for consideration before the Court –

1. Whether Canon Law recognizes adoption?

2. What are the essentials to constitute a valid adoption?

3. Whether the Trial Court went wrong in holding that the adoption of 6th Defendant is not proved?

4. Any interference required in the verdict impugned?

5. Reliefs and cost.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “While addressing the question as to whether Christian Law permits valid adoption, in Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Latin-English Edition, Canon 812 says that, those who are legally related by reason of adoption cannot validly marry each other if their relationship is in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line. Similarly, Canon 689 paragraph 3 says that, if it is a case of an adopted child, the names of the adoptive parents are recorded, and at least if it is done in the civil records of the region, the names of the natural parents, in accord with the norms of §§1 and 2 and attentive to particular law.”

The Court added that similarly, Canon 110 followed by the other sect of Christians provides that, children, who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them.

“The method of adoption by ancient custom in the diocese is to carry the parties that are to be adopted before the Bishop or Prelate with certain testimonials before whom they declare that they take such a one for their son and that thereupon the Bishop has to pass an Olla or certificate and then adoption is perfected, but however that such adoption thereafter shall not be accepted from any that have children and that in case they have none, yet it shall be declared in the Olla that if they shall afterwards happen to have any, such Olla shall be void for all intents and purposes”, it also said.

Furthermore, the Court observed that in order to prove adoption, there must be evidence of the actual formality of the adoption by proving the physical act of giving and taking of the child and a mere expression of consent or the execution of a deed of adoption without proving the physical act of giving and accepting the boy or a girl in adoption will not be sufficient even under the principles of Hindu Law.

“… it is held that the trial court rightly found that the essentials of a valid adoption not established by defendant No.1 and additional 6th defendant independently and therefore, it could not be held that the additional 6th defendant is the adopted child of Joseph J.Karuvelil so as to inherit upon his properties. Therefore, the decree and judgment of the trial court are liable to be confirmed”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title- Mary Joseph & Anr. v. Thomas Joseph & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:23697)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates George Joseph and Jacob Chacko.

Respondents: Advocates Roy Chacko, Sethuram Dharmapalan, Jomy George, and Bhanu Thilak.