Biological Siblings Can't Claim Heirship Of Adopted Child; Adoption Severs Ties With Biological Family: Madras High Court

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus noted that the biological family of the adopted child cannot be called the legal heirs of the adopted child and have a claim over the property inherited by him/her from the adoptive family.

“Thus, it is made clear that on the date of adoption the ties of the adoptive child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sakthivel, challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer canceling the relationship certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The matter pertained to one Kottravel Sethupathi adopted by the petitioner's uncle Ramasamy and his wife Sivakami.

Ramasamy had a brother Varanavasi and a sister Lakshmiammal who each had two sons and two daughters respectively including the petitioner. Ramasamy and Sivakami died leaving behind their sole legal heir, the adopted son Kottravel Sethupathi. Sethupathi also died later, leaving behind no legal heirs in first class as per the Hindu Succession Act. Since Varanavasi's and Lakshmiammal's children were the class II legal heirs of Ramasamy, they had applied for a legal heirship certificate, which was issued after due enquiry.

Aggrieved over the same, the biological brother and sisters of Sethupathi preferred an appeal before the RDO, who set aside the legal heirship certificate earlier issued and directed the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh inquiry.

The petitioner argued that as per Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, on the date of adoption, all ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to have been severed and replaced by those created by adoption.

Agreeing with this, the court noted that though Sethupathi had siblings, his birth is deemed to have been severed and replaced by those created by adoption. Thus, noting that the order of the RDO contravened Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the court quashed the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.J. Mohammed Sathik Government Advocate, Mr.D.Selvaraju

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

Case Title: V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case No: W.P. No.1386 of 2021