Case: Saheb Reddy Vs. Sharanappa

as “the Succession Act”) all the family members had got share in the properties of late Smt. Sharnappa. The first appellate Court had held that defendant no.1, who had been adopted on 9th February, 1971 would get 1/4th share of his adoptive mother’s property, whereas the plaintiff would get not only 1/16th share of the property, but also 1/64th share of the property of Smt. Sharnappa for the reason that Smt. Sharnappa had one adopted son and three daughters and therefore, the plaintiff would, at the first instance, get 1/4th share of Smt. Nagamma, the property which she had inherited from her mother Smt. Sharnappa and further 1/64th share from the property of Smt. Sharnappa (grandmother) as Smt. Sharnappa had died intestate. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to 5/64th share in the suit property.11. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate Court, defendant no.1 filed Regular Second Appeal no.7310 of 2009 before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment accepted the said second appeal by setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court.12. We have heard the learned counsel at length, on facts as well as on legal issues. The issues involved in the instant case also pertain to facts. The core question which, in our opinion, arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court has rightly allocated share of the properties among the family members in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.13. It is undisputed that late Shri Sharnappa died intestate in the year 1957 leaving behind him his wife Smt. Sharnappa and three daughters namely Smt. Kydigamma, Smt. Nagamma and Smt. Sarojamma. In the instant case, there was no coparcenary, as Late Shri Sharnappa was the sole male member in the family. In the circumstances, upon his death his properties were inherited by his widow and three daughters.14. At the time when Shri Sharnappa died in 1957, defendant no.1 was not in the picture as he was adopted by Smt. Sharnappa on 9th February, 1971. By virtue of proviso to Section 12 of the Adoption Act, an adopted child cannot divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption. Thus, the property of late Shri Sharnappa which, upon his death in 1957, had vested in his widow and three daughters, would not be disturbed by virtue of subsequent adoption of defendant no.1.15. So far as inheritance of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff is concerned, in our opinion, the first appellate Court was correct to the effect that the plaintiff would inherit not only property of his mother, Smt. Nagamma along with his three sisters, but he would also have share in the properties of his grandmother, late Smt. Sharnappa. Smt. Sharnappa had also not prepared any Will and as she had died intestate, her property would be divided among her adopted son i.e. defendant no.1 and heirs of her three daughters, who had predeceased Smt. Sharnappa. Smt. Sharnappa was having 1/4th share in the entire property, which she had inherited from her husband late Shri Sharnappa. One of the daughters being Nagamma, heirs of Nagamma would inherit 1/4th share of property of Smt. Sharnappa and the plaintiff being one of the four heirs of late Smt. Nagamma, would get 1/64th share from the property of his grandmother Smt. Sharnappa.16. As originally Smt. Sharnappa was to get 1/4th share from the property of Shri Sharnappa, from her 1/4th share, the properties would be inherited by her adopted son and heirs of her predeceased daughters. As stated hereinabove, the plaintiff would be getting 1/16th share in the property of Smt. Nagamma and 1/64th share upon death of Smt. Sharnappa and thus, the plaintiff would be getting 5/64th share in the suit property, whereas defendant no.1 would get 1/16th share of the suit property.17. Upon appreciation of the evidence, it was found by the trial Court that the adoption was valid because that was by virtue of a registered adoption deed and the said deed had been duly proved. In the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to discuss the said evidence again. We confirm the view of the first appellate Court that the adopted son viz. defendant no.1 would not divest any person in whom the property had been vested prior to adoption. Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as under :-“12 Effects of adoption. – An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family:Provided that—(a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth;(b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth;(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.”18. Looking at the aforestated provisions of Section 12 of the Adoption Act, it is crystal clear that the property which had been vested in the widow and three daughters of late Shri Sharnappa Gaded in 1957 would not be disturbed because of adoption of defendant no.1, which had taken place on 9th February, 1971. Thus, Smt. Sharnappa had become absolute owner of 1/4th share and Smt. Nagamma, the mother of the plaintiff had also become an owner of 1/4th share of the property belonging to late Shri Sharnappa Gaded.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. It is undisputed that late Shri Sharnappa died intestate in the year 1957 leaving behind him his wife Smt. Sharnappa and three daughters namely Smt. Kydigamma, Smt. Nagamma and Smt. Sarojamma. In the instant case, there was no coparcenary, as Late Shri Sharnappa was the sole male member in the family. In the circumstances, upon his death his properties were inherited by his widow and three daughters.14. At the time when Shri Sharnappa died in 1957, defendant no.1 was not in the picture as he was adopted by Smt. Sharnappa on 9th February, 1971. By virtue of proviso to Section 12 of the Adoption Act, an adopted child cannot divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption. Thus, the property of late Shri Sharnappa which, upon his death in 1957, had vested in his widow and three daughters, would not be disturbed by virtue of subsequent adoption of defendant no.1.15. So far as inheritance of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff is concerned, in our opinion, the first appellate Court was correct to the effect that the plaintiff would inherit not only property of his mother, Smt. Nagamma along with his three sisters, but he would also have share in the properties of his grandmother, late Smt. Sharnappa. Smt. Sharnappa had also not prepared any Will and as she had died intestate, her property would be divided among her adopted son i.e. defendant no.1 and heirs of her three daughters, who had predeceased Smt. Sharnappa. Smt. Sharnappa was having 1/4th share in the entire property, which she had inherited from her husband late Shri Sharnappa. One of the daughters being Nagamma, heirs of Nagamma would inherit 1/4th share of property of Smt. Sharnappa and the plaintiff being one of the four heirs of late Smt. Nagamma, would get 1/64th share from the property of his grandmother Smt. Sharnappa.16. As originally Smt. Sharnappa was to get 1/4th share from the property of Shri Sharnappa, from her 1/4th share, the properties would be inherited by her adopted son and heirs of her predeceased daughters. As stated hereinabove, the plaintiff would be getting 1/16th share in the property of Smt. Nagamma and 1/64th share upon death of Smt. Sharnappa and thus, the plaintiff would be getting 5/64th share in the suit property, whereas defendant no.1 would get 1/16th share of the suit property.17. Upon appreciation of the evidence, it was found by the trial Court that the adoption was valid because that was by virtue of a registered adoption deed and the said deed had been duly proved. In the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to discuss the said evidence again. We confirm the view of the first appellate Court that the adopted son viz. defendant no.1 would not divest any person in whom the property had been vested prior to adoption.Looking at the aforestated provisions of Section 12 of the Adoption Act, it is crystal clear that the property which had been vested in the widow and three daughters of late Shri Sharnappa Gaded in 1957 would not be disturbed because of adoption of defendant no.1, which had taken place on 9th February, 1971. Thus, Smt. Sharnappa had become absolute owner of 1/4th share and Smt. Nagamma, the mother of the plaintiff had also become an owner of 1/4th share of the property belonging to late Shri Sharnappa Gaded.