A Full Bench of Telangana High Court had ruled that a child, on adoption, ceases to be coparcener of family of his/ her birth and foregoes interest in the ancestral property in the family of his/ her birth.
Pronouncing verdict in a Letters Patent Appeal raising questions over an adopted person’s right to inherit property of his/ her family of birth, the Full Bench said, however, the adopted person would have rights over property of his/ her family of birth under some conditions. The judgement was delivered by the Full Bench comprising Justices P. Naveen Rao, B. Vijaysen Reddy and Nagesh Bheemapaka.
The bench ruled that an adopted person would not forego interest in the ancestral property in the family of his/ her birth if the partition had taken place before adoption and property was allotted to his or her share or self acquired. Similarly the adopted person would not forego rights in the ancestral property if it was obtained by will, inherited from his or her natural father or other ancestor. If the property is collateral which is not coparcenary property held along with other coparceners and held by the person as sole surviving coparcener, the adopted person would carry the property with him or her into the adoptive family with corresponding obligations, the verdict said.
The LPA arose out of a judgement and decree in a suit delivered by Senior Civil Judge Court of Khammam for partition and possession of the property. An adopted person filed the suit seeking share in his parents’ property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the adopted person.
The court observed that ‘a coparcener of the family in which he was born would not be divested of his share in the properties belonging to the family even after his adoption by another family’. The trial court judge also relied on a judgement delivered by a division bench of the same HC in Yarlagadda Nayudamma case.
The adopted person’s brother filed an appeal suit in High Court challenging trial court’s order. A single judge of the HC dismissed the same. He filed a review petition which was also dismissed. Then he filed the LPA which was heard by the Full Bench.
