Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.Maria Clete, J
N.Bharath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
No Respondent – Respondent
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Suryanarayanan for Mr.Rahul Balaji Madhan Babu Vishnu Mohan Rangasaran Mohan
For the Respondent(s): Nil
Valid adoption and proved Will entitle adopted son to Letters of Administration without notice to remote heirs.
Headnote:Under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, petitioner sought Letters of Administration with Will annexed, claiming adoption and status as universal legatee of testatrix's estate valued at Rs.1,95,56,640/-. Court examined original Will (Ex.P1), adoption deed (Ex.P6), death and heirship certificates, finding valid adoption and due execution of registered Will by testatrix in sound mind. Court held petitioner established prima facie case for succession purposes. Issues framed around proof of adoption, Will validity, and need for notice to deceased husband's heirs. Ratio: Adoption via registered deed and public records suffices for testamentary jurisdiction without notice to remote heirs absent dispute; Will proved by attesting witness (PW2). Non-impleadment of husband's heirs does not bar petition. Original Petition allowed; Letters of Administration with Will annexed granted to petitioner on executing Rs.25,000 security bond, with inventory filing in six months and accounts in one year.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under succession act for administration based on adoption and will proof. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. registered adoption deed establishes prima facie succession rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. no notice required to remote heirs absent adoption dispute. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. will validity confirmed; letters of administration granted with bond. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
This Original Petition has been filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the Will dated 02.02.1998 said to have been executed by the deceased, N. Jayalakshmi. The petitioner claims as the adopted son and sole beneficiary under the said Will.
2. The materials placed before this Court show that the petitioner has marked the original Will as Ex.P1; the death certificate of the testatrix as Ex.P2; the legal heirship certificate of the testatrix as Ex.P4; the legal heirship certificate of R. Narayanan as Ex.P5; the adoption deed dated 10.05.1976 as Ex.P6; the sale deed standing in the name of R. Narayanan as Ex.P7; the revenue record as Ex.P8; and the valuation report as Ex.P9. The estate has been valued at Rs.1,95,56,640/-.
3. In the petition, it is specifically stated that R. Narayanan, husband of the testatrix, died intestate on 13.04.1973 leaving the testatrix as his sole legal heir; that the petitioner was thereafter adopted by the testatrix under a registered Adoption Deed dated 10.05.1976; that the Will dated 02.02.1998 is a registered Will; that the testatrix died on 12.06.2021; that no executor has been named under the Will; and that the petitioner is the sole son of the testatrix by adoption and the universal legatee under the Will.
4. The evidence of P.W.1 also confirms the marking of the legal heirship certificate of the deceased and the deed of adoption. The evidence of P.W.2, one of the attesting witnesses, establishes due execution and attestation of the Will and states that the testatrix executed the Will in a sound and disposing state of mind.
5. The legal heir certificate produced in relation to the deceased also indicates the petitioner as the adopted son. Thus, the plea of adoption is not resting merely on an assertion in the petition, but is supported by the registered deed of adoption and by public documents recognising the petitioner in that status.
6. In the light of the above materials, this Court is satisfied, at least for the limited purpose of the present testamentary proceeding, that the petitioner has made out a prima facie and acceptable case of valid adoption and that he has been consistently recognised as the adopted son of the deceased in the supporting records. Once such adoption is accepted, the petitioner steps into the position of the child of the deceased for the purpose of succession.
7. In that view, the legal heirs of the husband of the deceased cannot be said to have any present caveatable interest in the estate of the testatrix. Mere remote or contingent possibility of succession, which would arise only if both the adoption and the testamentary disposition fail, is not sufficient to insist upon notice in every case. Notice to such persons would become necessary only where the adoption is specifically disputed, appears doubtful, or is not supported by satisfactory materials. That is not the position here.
8. In the present case, there is no contest; the adoption is evidenced by Ex.P6; the petitioner is shown as the adopted son in the legal heirship materials; and the Will has also been proved through an attesting witness. Therefore, non- impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased husband does not affect the maintainability of the petition.
9. This Court is also satisfied that the Will dated 02.02.1998 has been duly proved, that the testatrix died on 12.06.2021, that she left no executor under the Will, and that the petitioner, being the adopted son and universal legatee, is entitled to the grant sought.
10. Accordingl
