Legal Heirship Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Absence Of Valid Adoption & Supporting Evidence: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently upheld a Single Judge's finding that a Legal Heirship Certificate cannot be issued in favour of a person in the absence of a valid legal adoption and documents evidencing the adoption, so as to enable them to claim compassionate appointment upon the death of the alleged adoptive parent. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran...
The Kerala High Court recently upheld a Single Judge's finding that a Legal Heirship Certificate cannot be issued in favour of a person in the absence of a valid legal adoption and documents evidencing the adoption, so as to enable them to claim compassionate appointment upon the death of the alleged adoptive parent.
A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran added that the lack of any evidence supporting the adoption on record justifies denying the requested relief, upholding the Single Judge's order.
"In the absence of a valid and legal adoption, and in any case, in the absence of documents evidencing the factum of adoption, albeit not in terms of law, we cannot find fault with the respondent authorities in not issuing a Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of the petitioner. More than the absence of a legal document evidencing a legal adoption, what weigh with us to refuse the relief sought for is the complete dearth of evidence suggesting an inference as to the factum of adoption from the materials on record."
The appellant, who claimed to be the adopted daughter of one Gopalan, a part-time sweeper in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, GST, who had passed away while in service, had filed a plea before the Single Judge seeking the issuance of directions to the District Collector, Sub Collector, Tahsildar and Village Officer for the Legal Heirship Certificate to be issued to her so that she could claim compassionate appointment.
However, the Single Judge dismissed the plea, noting the absence of an adoption certificate or a declaration from a competent civil court in that regard.
Advocates S. Balachandran and V.R. Gopu contended on behalf of the appellant that she had been residing with the said Gopalan, pursuant to the death of both her parents since the age of four years, and that the latter had conducted her marriage when she attained 18 years of age. The counsel submitted that the deceased had nominated the appellant to receive the death cum retirement gratuity, acknowledging her as his stepdaughter and that he had also issued a consent letter to the Manager of Indian Bank, stating the appellant to be his adopted daughter, and constituting her as his nominee in respect of his bank account. They added that a registered Will was also executed by the deceased recognizing the appellant as his adopted daughter and bequeathing her the right to realize all service benefits, pursuant to his death.
The counsel thus submitted that none of these documents had been considered by the Single Judge while rejecting the appellant's prayer. It was added that the deceased also could not have adopted the appellant in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, since the latter is a Christian by religion, and there is no law enabling an adoption of a Christian adoptive daughter by a Hindu adoptive parent, and the insistence on proof of valid adoption was thus an impossibility in itself.
The Senior Government Pleader Saigi Jacob Palatty however argued that in the absence of a valid and legal document convincing the factum of adoption, the appointing authority could not be faulted for not processing the claim for compassionate appointment.
The Bench perused the documents and determined that there was nothing to indicate that the appellant had been adopted by the deceased and was being treated in all respects as an adopted daughter, with all incidents of a biological daughter.
The Court noted that the deceased had nominated the appellant as a 'stepdaughter' in order to receive the death cum retirement gratuity and that in the consent letter issued by him to the Bank, the appellant had been referred to as 'foster daughter'.
"These averments are far below the legal requirement, even to suggest remotely a valid adoption of the petitioner by the said Gopalan," the Court observed.
The Court thus could not find any fault with the respondent authorities for not issuing a Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of the petitioner.
"In the given facts also, there is nothing evidencing the physical act of giving and taking of the child, nor is there any competent giver of the child in adoption," the Court added, while dismissing the appeal.
Case Title: Prameela L. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Case Number: WA No. 1001 of 2023