Andhra Pradesh High Court backs man’s property claim 63 years after he was adopted

The court added, “…in judging whether an adoption pleaded by a party has been satisfactorily proved or not, the Court has to determine the lapse of time between the date of the alleged adoption and the date on which the concerned party is required to adduce proof.”

Adoption, property dispute

The man, born in 1955, claimed that he was adopted by his late paternal uncle and aunt when he was eight years old, following customary rituals. A registered adoption deed was also executed in 1979. He claimed that the suit properties, including agricultural land and a house, were ancestral family properties belonging to him and his late father. He said his adoptive parents raised him as their son and arranged his marriage.

Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao held that the man had proved himself to be the adoptive son of the woman and her late husband through oral and documentary evidence. (AI-enhanced image)

After his adoptive father died in 2001, he alleged that his adoptive mother became hostile towards him and joined hands with relatives to create documents and other claims affecting the properties. He has filed a suit seeking partition.

Advocate N Siva Reddy, appearing for the adoptive mother, argued that no valid adoption took place, and her consent was absent. The counsel relied on school records, voter lists and alleged that the adoption deed was created under the pretext of a lease document.

Advocates Venkat Challa and Varrey Venkata Naga Vishnu Teja, appearing for the man, contended that he was adopted when he was eight after following customary ceremonies and that the registered adoption deed, along with witness testimony, established his status as the adopted son and his right to a share in ancestral property.

It was submitted that after the death of the woman’s husband, disputes arose between the families. Notably, no notice was issued by her or her husband stating that a registered adoption deed was obtained under the guise of a lease deed. After more than 25 years, the woman pleaded in a written statement in 2005 that the adoption deed was obtained under the guise of a lease deed.

It was argued that it was well settled that for a valid adoption, the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite – a ceremony imperative in all adoptions whatever the caste – and the consent of both the parties is also an essential requisite.

Woman failed to prove her claim: HC

The high court held that the man had proved himself as the adoptive son of the woman and her late husband through oral and documentary evidence. It observed that witnesses who were present at the adoption ceremony had established the actual “giving and taking” of the child, which is essential for a valid adoption.

The judge also noted the registered adoption deed executed in 1979, and that the adoptive mother had admitted its execution but failed to prove her claim that it was obtained fraudulently.

It observed that the registered adoption deed attracted the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, as it recorded that it was executed by the natural and adoptive parents. The court further added that the man’s school records, which showed his natural parents, did not disprove his claim of adoption, as he was already attending school when he was adopted.