SC dismisses adoption deed in property dispute, says meant to oust daughters from rightful inheritance

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Allahabad High Court discarding the adoption deed of a man in a property dispute case, saying it was a calculated move to deny the daughters of their rightful inheritance of their father's estate.

The high court, which also apologised for over four decades of delay in deciding the question of the validity of the adoption deed filed in 1983, also said that the mandatory requirement that a person who adopts a child must have the consent of his wife was absent.

Shiv Kumari Devi and Harmunia were daughters of now-deceased Bhuneshwar Singh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner Ashok Kumar had claimed that he was adopted by Singh from his biological father Subedar Singh in a ceremony and a photograph was produced before the court. Kumar has staked a claim in the inheritance of Bhuneshwar Singh.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the plea filed by Kumar against the December 11, 2024, order of the high court that refused to accept the validity of the August 9, 1967, adoption deed, saying mandatory procedures were not followed.

The top court said, "Having heard senior counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and on carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the Adoption Deed dated August 9, 1967, was nothing but a calculated move to deprive Shiv Kumari and her elder sister – Harmunia - of their legally vested right to inherit the estate of their father."

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant said, "We know this is a methodology adopted in rural areas to oust the daughters from rightful inheritance. We know how these adoption proceedings are carried out. The high court has rightly dismissed the adoption deed."

The bench, in its order passed recently, said the consolidation authorities as well as the high court have rightly discarded the said document, which has no legal sanctity.

The high court said, "In the aforesaid circumstances, the court is of considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with reasoned order passed by the Board of Revenue as the mandatory requirements for valid adoption were not followed, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed." It had said that the findings returned by the Board of Revenue are in terms of earlier verdicts..

Also, there is evidence that has not been contradicted that adoption proceedings were conducted without the consent of the wife of the person who adopted the child. Therefore, the mandatory requirement was not fulfilled as well as nature of the evidence has also not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the ceremony of giving and taking was undertaken.

The high court had said it could be held without any doubt that the wife of the adoptive man had not signed the adoption deed as well as the photographs also indicate that she had not participated in the ceremony.

"One witness has not even identified her in photographs, therefore, the court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory requirement that a person who adopts a child must have the consent of his wife was absent," it had said.

The counsel for the daughters contended that the adoption deed has to be proved in terms of provisions provided under the Maintenance and Adoption Act 1956 and consent of the wife of a male who adopts a child was mandatory as well as there must be proof of ceremony of actual giving and taking adoption.

"However, in the present case, the signature of the adopted mother was neither on the adoption deed nor was she present at the time of its registration. Adopted father has given his consent while sitting in a 'Palki' at the time of registration," it was contended