V SAKTHIVEL V THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 2024 (MAD) 254

V SAKTHIVEL V THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 2024 (MAD) 254

FACTS: The petitioner's grandfather, Late Sengota Gounder, had three children: Ramasamy, Varanavasi, and Lakshmi. The petitioner is the son of Varanavasi. Ramasamy and his wife, Sivakami, who had no biological children, adopted Kottravel Sethupathi in 1999. After the deaths of Ramasamy and Sivakami, Kottravel Sethupathi became their sole legal heir. Kottravel Sethupathi passed away on September 6, 2020, without leaving any first-class legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Varanavasi had two sons, and Lakshmiammal had two daughters, who, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are class II legal heirs of Ramasamy. They applied for a legal heirship certificate, which was issued by the second respondent on November 19, 2020, in favor of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. Dissatisfied with this decision, respondents 6 to 8 filed an appeal before the first respondent. On December 31, 2020, the first respondent set aside the legal heirship certificate issued by the second respondent and ordered a fresh enquiry.

Despite having biological siblings, their legal ties with Kottravel Sethupathi were severed upon his adoption by Ramasamy, establishing his complete affiliation with his adoptive family and precluding any claims from his biological relatives on his inherited properties.

ISSUES: Whether biological siblings can assert inheritance rights over an adopted child.

OBSERVATION: Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the biological family of an adopted child cannot claim legal heirship or entitlement to the adopted child's inherited property from the adoptive family. The adopted child is considered a member of the adoptive family, and all legal ties are redefined within that adoptive family unit as per Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, the first respondent's order dated December 31, 2020, contravenes this legal principle and is hereby nullified. Consequently, the writ petition is granted, and the order dated December 31, 2020, by the first respondent is quashed.