YARLAGADDA NAYUDAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference the point that falls for our consideration is when a member of a coparcenary governed by Mitakshara School is given in adoption, whether his undivided interest in the coparcenary property would continue to vest in him even after adoption by reason of the proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The answer chiefly turns upon the construction of the language employed, in particular, in proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Act. Before reaching the conclusion by the processual interpretation of the said provisions, the relevant facts may briefly be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner in C. R. P. No. 103/79 is one Nayudamma (male). Lakshmamma, the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 104/79 is his widowed mother and the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 105/79 is his son. Nayudamma has another son by name Sree Rama Prasad, who was given in adoption on 20-8-1970 to one R. Rattamma, who filed the declaration in C. C. 2216/75. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petitions and the aforesaid Rattamma claim that the adopted son is entitled to a share in the lands belonging to the natural family and therefore his share in the lands should be included in his holding and excluded from the holdings of his natural father and brother within the meaning of the proviso (b) to Sec. 12. In other words, the right of the said Sree Rama Prasad in the properties of the natural family was a vested right and that right, even after adoption, continued to vest in him and it is that vested right which is sought to be challenged by the contentions and rival contentions. This reference arises because of conflict of opinions given by the authors who edited Mullas Hindu Law, 14th Edition on the one hand and Hindu Law of Adoption, Maintenance, Minority and Guardianship, commented by Sri S. V. Gupte. Proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Act, in as follows:

(3.) From the provisions of the aforesaid Statute it is quite manifest that the Legislature has enacted a special provision i. e., proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Act which is explicit and unequivocal in its language and intention. The property as per the said proviso (b) which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person. It is further added that property will be subject to the obligations, if any, attached to the ownership of such property. Therefore it is the undoubted view of the Legislature that a person even after being given in adoption, takes along with him the property from his natural family which vested in him and continues to vest in him, adoption notwithstanding, whether that property vested in him either due to partition or otherwise. The texts of the Mitakshara Law, which we will presently see, are emphatic with regard to the vesting of the property in the coparcener. The property vests in a coparcener by birth and hence he gets a vested right in that property by virtue of inheritance. The position would have been probably different, if the proviso (b) was not enacted in Section 12. Be that as it may, in so far as the proviso (b) is concerned, it makes perfectly clear that the person even after Ms adoption, takes the property along with him which was earlier vested in that person. This view of ours is supported by Sri S. V. Gupte, who has written commentary on Hindu Law of Adoption, Maintenance, Minority and Guardianship. While dealing with the proviso (b) to Section 12 the learned Author holds the view of ours, which is to the following effect:--