1959 (1) TMI 32 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Affirms Adopted Son's Rights in Property Dispute; Upholds Validity of Adoption & Gift

Potharaju Pardhasaradhi Rao Versus Potharaju Srinivasa Sarma And

The court upheld the validity of the adoption of Parthasarathi Rao by Papayamma. It recognized the adopted son's right to claim his adoptive father's ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the adoption of Parthasarathi Rao.2. Right of the adopted son to claim the adoptive father's share.3. Effect of alienations made by the sole surviving coparcener.4. Validity of the adoption of Srinivasa Sarma.5. Intention of the donor in the gift deed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the adoption of Parthasarathi Rao:The validity of Parthasarathi Rao's adoption was not challenged in these appeals. The court proceeded on the basis that Parthasarathi Rao was validly adopted by Papayamma.2. Right of the adopted son to claim the adoptive father's share:The appellant argued that since his adoption dates back to the death of his adoptive father, he is entitled to his adoptive father's share of the family estate. The court recognized the principle that an adopted son has a right to get the share of his adoptive father from other coparceners in possession or from one who has acquired it by inheritance. However, the court questioned whether this doctrine extends to cases where the sole surviving coparcener has disposed of the property before the adoption.3. Effect of alienations made by the sole surviving coparcener:The court held that the right of the adopted son should be limited to displacing titles acquired by inheritance and not those acquired by outsiders in other ways. The adoption by a widow of a deceased coparcener would not affect dispositions made by a person holding the estate. The rule that an adoption dates back to the death of the adoptive father does not apply to cases where the last male holder has disposed of the property. The sole surviving coparcener is regarded as the owner of the coparcenary property and can alienate property either for necessity or by way of gift. The adopted son takes the estate subject to the alienations made by the holder for the time being.4. Validity of the adoption of Srinivasa Sarma:The appellant argued that the adoption of Srinivasa Sarma was invalid because Ramayamma's authority to adopt had become extinct due to the existence of a grandson who left a widow as his heir. The court noted that this issue was not raised in the lower courts and was brought up for the first time in an application for permission to raise additional grounds. The court did not allow this petition at this stage.5. Intention of the donor in the gift deed:The court examined whether the gift to Srinivasa Sarma was made dependent on the requisites of a valid adoption or whether it was to a named person despite the expectation that the requirements of a valid adoption were satisfied. The court concluded that the intention of the donor was to confer all her properties on the donee as a named individual irrespective of whether the adoption was legal or not. The court considered the overall provisions of the document and the background of the previous history, noting the strained feelings between the parties and the donor's intention to prevent her daughter and granddaughter from succeeding to her estate.Conclusion:The court confirmed the decrees and judgments of the lower courts, dismissing the appeals with costs. The adopted son, Parthasarathi Rao, could not claim the property that had vested in Ramayamma under the will of her husband. The adoption of Srinivasa Sarma was not invalidated, and the gift to him was upheld as it was intended to be to a named individual irrespective of the validity of the adoption.