Adoption does not divest an adopted child of rights acquired through a biological parent if the property was established as independent property prior to adoption.

JUDGMENT :

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

BRIEF FACTS :

1. This appeal is preferred by the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. The trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit, declaring that the suit properties are owned by the plaintiff, defendant no.3 and heirs of defendant no.2. The trial court had directed the defendants not to obstruct the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. The trial court’s decree declared that defendant no.3 and the heirs of defendant no.2 can claim partition of the suit property by a separate legal proceeding. However, they were held not entitled to disturb the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property till recovery of their shares after following due process of law. The first appeal preferred by defendant no.1 is allowed, and the trial court’s judgment and decree is set aside, and the suit is dismissed. Hence, the second appeal by the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff.

2. The second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

I) What is the legal effect of the fact of adoption dated 12^th September 1940?

II) Whether the appellate court was correct according to law to interfere with the decree passed by the trial court?

3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff is defendant no. 1’s biological brother and Defendant no.2 - Pushpalata, and defendant no.3 – Kalawati, are their biological sisters. One Tatya Katkar was their father. At the age of 15 years, defendant no. 1 (Vithal) was given in adoption to Ratnabai Sakharam Katkar on 12^th May 1940 by executing a registered adoption deed. Before giving defendant no. 1 in adoption, his biological father, Tatya, purchased the suit property in the name of defendant no. 1, Vithal. In the revenue record, the suit property was entered into defendant no.1's name, represented through his adoptive mother as guardian. Thus, based on the registered sale deed and the revenue record in his name, defendant no. 1 claims to be the exclusive owner of the suit property.

4. The plaintiff contends that defendant no. 1 was given in adoption in a different family, and he had no right with respect to the suit property. The plaintiff contends that the suit property purchased in the name of defendant no.1 was purchased from the joint family income. The suit property belongs to the joint family of Tatya, plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3.

5. Thus, the controversy in the suit is regarding the fact of the sale deed in the name of defendant no.1, the revenue record in the name of defendant no.1 represented through his adoptive mother as guardian and the plaintiff’s claim that he and defendant nos. 2 and 3 had a share in the suit property as it belonged to the joint family of Tatya. The trial court held that in view of the adoption deed, defendant no.1 was not entitled to claim any right in the suit property. However, the first appellate court held that the suit property was purchased by way of a registered sale deed in the name of defendant no.1. The first appellate court, thus, held that the plaintiff would not be entitled to seek any declaration of ownership in the property which was purchased in the name of defendant no.1.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff) submitted that the sale deed dated 21^st May 1940 was executed in the name of defendant no.1; however, the property was purchased from joint family income by their father, Tatya. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that after execution of the sale deed, defendant no.1 was given in adoption on 12^th September 1940. He submitted that since the sale deed was standing in the name of defendant no.1, who was a minor at the relevant time, he was shown as represented through his adoptive mother as a guardian while making the entry in the revenue record. He submitted that Tatya expired