2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1088

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Bishwanath Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Dwarika Prasad Bhagat – Respondent
S.A. No. 14 of 1995 (R)

A valid adoption under Hindu law severs all civil rights and obligations between the adopted child and the biological family. Consequently, an adopted person cannot remain a member of his biological Joint Hindu Family, and property acquired as an adopted son remains his exclusive asset, not part of the biological family's stock.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Adoption - Effect - Section 11 and 12 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - An adopted child acquires the status of a child in the adopted family and is completely removed from the natural family regarding civil rights and obligations - Adopted son loses rights in the coparcenary property of the natural family and natural family cannot inherit from him, nor is he liable for their debts. (Para 14(b), 35)

(B) Civil Procedure - Abatement - Order 22 Requirement - Rule 4 of CPC - Non-substitution of one of the legal heirs of a deceased party does not lead to abatement of the entire proceedings if the estate of the deceased is sufficiently represented by the other heirs on record - There is a clear distinction between non-substitution of a deceased party and non-substitution of one of the heirs of a deceased party. (Paras 20, 21)

(C) Evidence - Credibility of document - Plea of creation of joint family property - Burden of proof to establish that property was thrown into the common stock rests on the person making such assertion - An agreement containing references to property holdings that came into existence after the date of such agreement is a colorable and tainted document devoid of credibility. (Paras 14(e), 27, 36)

Facts of the case:
This second appeal arose from a partition suit where the original plaintiff claimed a half-share in a property, arguing that the defendant, although adopted, remained part of a joint family with the plaintiff and their biological father, and that the property had been thrown into the common joint family stock. The defendant contended that the property was his exclusive asset acquired through his adoption by the owner. The initial trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding there was no unity of title or possession.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant, upon his valid adoption, became completely severed from his biological family's joint Hindu family status. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff to show a transition of property into joint family stocks were found to be forged, and the plaintiff's occupation of a small part of the premises was permissive rather than a result of joint ownership.

Issues: (i) Whether the biological father and his two sons (plaintiff and defendant) continued to form a Joint Hindu Family after the defendant's adoption. (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to half-share in the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that legal adoption carries the effect of total severance of ties with the natural family. Since the defendant was an adopted child, the legal unity of the joint family between the brothers ceased, and evidence failed to establish any subsequent merging of the exclusive property into a common family stock.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural origin of the second appeal and framed substantial questions of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of opposing contentions regarding adoption validity and properties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. detailed pleadings, genealogical background, and issues framed by the trial court. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. analysis of trial court findings versus the reversal by the first appellate court. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. legal determination that non-substitution of a legal representative does not cause entire appeal abatement. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. adoption completely severs ties with biological family; property remained exclusive/non-joint. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the appellate decree. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

Lastly heard on 11.11.2025 Pronounced on 29^th January, 2026

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1994 (decree signed on 13.12.1994) passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Giridih in Title Appeal No.24 of 1991 reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.05.1991 (decree signed on 27.05.1991) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Giridih in Partition Suit No. 15 of 1989/08 of 1990.

2. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court has been reversed by the learned 1^st appellate court and consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court.

3. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 21.11.1995 on the following substantial questions of law: -

(i) Whether even after adoption of the defendant by Man Kumari, Nathuni Chaudhuri and his two sons, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant continued to be in occupation of the suit premises as members of the Joint Hindu Family?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the suit property?

4. The partition suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-Bishwanath Prasad seeking partition and half share of Schedule B property.

5. Arguments of the appellants (plaintiff)

A. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed the trial court’s judgment and has given the factual background of the case. He submits that the facts of the plaintiff and defendant case are reflecting from the trial court’s judgment.

B. Foundational facts have been submitted as under: -

a. It has been submitted that Man Kumari and Khoshal Kumari were full sisters.

b. Man Kumari was married to Kali Charan Bhagat;

c. Khoshal Kumari was married to Bhagwat Prasad Bhagat;

d. Kali Charan Bhagat had two wives, namely, Man Kumari and one more, but the name of another wife has not been mentioned. However, the descendants through another wife have been mentioned;

e. Another wife had a daughter, namely, Jamuna Devi, who in turn had 7 daughters including one Sabitri Devi;

f. Sabitri Devi was married to Nathuni Choudhary, who had two sons, namely, Dwarika Prasad and Bishwanath Prasad;

g. Bishwanath Prasad is the plaintiff of the case;

h. Dwarika Prasad is the defendant of the case.

C. The plaintiff-Bishwanath Prasad had filed the partition suit with respect to Schedule-B property and the plaintiff claimed ½ share of the property. Man Kumari was the owner of Schedule-B property.

D. Further facts in connection with the defendant Dwarika Prasad is that Man Kumari had adopted Dwarika Prasad by registered deed of adoption way back in the year 1944. The adoption deed was challenged by Bhagwat Prasad Bhagat, husband of Koshal Kumari in Title Suit No. 18/1947, whereby the deed of adoption was set-aside. However, the same was subject matter of appeal in First Appeal No. 11/1949, which ended in a compromise. Consequently, the defendant claimed that he was the exclusive owner of the Schedule-B property by virtue of the fact that Man Kumari had adopted the defendant, and therefore, the property could not be subject matter of partition.

E. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the plaint to submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document