advocatemmmohan

YARLAGADDA NAYUDAMMA AND OTHERS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Seetharama Reddy, J.

Decided on 16 April 1980

AIR 1981 AP 19; (1980) 2 Andh WR 327; (1980) 2 APLJ 194

Hindu Law — Adoption — Effect of adoption on undivided Mitakshara coparcenary interest in family of birth — Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), S. 12, proviso (b) — Whether undivided interest in coparcenary property continues to vest in adopted child after adoption — Held, yes.

Under S. 12, proviso (b), of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, any property which vested in an adopted child before adoption continues to vest in that person notwithstanding the severance of ties with the family of birth. The interest of a Mitakshara coparcener in joint family property is a vested interest acquired by birth. Such interest does not cease to vest merely because the coparcener is subsequently given in adoption. Proviso (b) constitutes an exception to the general rule under the main provision of S. 12 and must be given effect according to its language. The expression “any property which vested” is sufficiently wide to include the undivided interest of a coparcener in Mitakshara coparcenary property. The adopted child accordingly retains that interest in the property of the natural family, notwithstanding adoption, and the property attributable to that interest must be taken into account in computing the holding of the adoptive family and excluded from the holdings of the natural father or brother, as the case may be. (Paras 1–4)

Hindu Law — Mitakshara coparcenary — Nature of coparcenary interest — Vested right by birth — Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S. 30 — Disposition of coparcenary interest. A coparcener acquires an interest in coparcenary property by birth. Though the precise share may not be demarcated while the family remains undivided, the coparcener possesses an independent vested interest capable of disposition in accordance with law. The absence of a defined share at a particular point of time does not, by itself, negate the existence of that vested interest for the purposes of S. 12, proviso (b), of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. (Paras 3–4)

Hindu Law — Adoption — Construction of statutory proviso — Main provision and exception — Effect of S. 12, proviso (b). The principal provision of S. 12, which deems the adopted child to become a member of the adoptive family and severs the ties with the family of birth, must be read subject to the express exception in proviso (b). The proviso preserves property vested in the adopted child before adoption, subject to obligations attaching to its ownership, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of birth. (Paras 2–4)

Facts: Sree Rama Prasad, a member of a Mitakshara joint family, was given in adoption to R. Rattamma on 20 August 1970. In proceedings concerning the computation of landholdings, a dispute arose whether his undivided interest in the properties of his natural family continued to vest in him after adoption under S. 12, proviso (b), of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The matter was referred for determination of that question of law. (Paras 1–2)

Held: The undivided interest of a Mitakshara coparcener in the property of his natural family continues to vest in him after adoption by virtue of S. 12, proviso (b), of the Act. The reference was answered accordingly, and the civil revision petitions were directed to be placed before a learned Single Judge for adjudication of the remaining issues. (Para 4)

Subsequent judicial treatment: The contrary interpretation was adopted by the Patna High Court in Santosh Kumar Jalan alias Kanhaya Lal v. Chandra Kishore Jalan, AIR 2001 Pat 125, which held that an undivided coparcenary interest does not constitute property vested in the adopted child within the meaning of S. 12, proviso (b). The two decisions therefore express conflicting interpretations of the same statutory provision.