Title: N L Manjunatha & ANR AND B L Ananda
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2009
Date of Order: 10-07-2023
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the presence of an adoption deed or registered document is not obligatory for substantiating the adoption of a child. As long as the conditions mandated by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for a valid adoption are met, it will be adequate to establish the legitimacy of the adoption.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The main dispute in the case revolved around the appellant’s claim that Ananda was adopted by his maternal uncle, Nanjegowda, at the age of 7. After the alleged adoption, Ananda lived in Nanjegowda’s house and was even listed as Nanjegowda’s son in the voter list. Nanjegowda had also executed a Will, leaving his properties to Ananda.
The appellant argued that the lower courts rejected their claim solely because the adoption was not documented in a deed.
However, the respondent opposed this claim, asserting that Ananda was actually a foster son and not adopted. They pointed to Nanjegowda’s Will, which referred to Ananda as the foster son. The respondent further argued that there was no concrete evidence of the adoption ceremonies, such as giving and taking of the child and parental consent. Without a formal adoption deed, the appellant needed to provide proof of these ceremonies and parental consent to establish the adoption claim.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The court rejected an appeal submitted by N.L. Manjunatha, who contested the decision of both the trial court and the first appellate court, which had ruled in favor of B.L. Ananda (the respondent), the appellant’s brother, regarding the partition of ancestral property.
the court opined, “It is the act of adoption and not the adoption deed which confers the status of the adopted son. A perfectly valid adoption deed can be made without an adoption and any status which the adopted son gets by virtue of adoption is due to the proper ceremonies being performed and not any deed passed as evidence of that adoption.” Dismissing the appeal the bench said “In the case on hand there is no adoption deed. Even the evidence led has not established that ceremonies of giving of the adopted child by the natural father and taking of child by the adoptive father. Even there is no whisper regarding the consent of the natural mother and adoptive mothers either in the pleadings or in the evidence.”
Therefore, it concluded the trial Court rightly held that Appellant has failed to prove the adoption of Respondent by Nanjegowda.
