Background
According to the traditional Hindu law (prior to the codification in 1956), adoption was more of a religious and social institution rather than a family arrangement. This was done in the ancient past to guarantee continuity of the lineage and performance of the funeral rites of the adoptive father. The adopted son was considered a child born in the new family, and his connection with the blood ties was known to have broken. Nonetheless, not all schools of Hindu law (Mitakshara, Dayabhaga, etc.) judged the measure of severance in the same way, and as a consequence, there was confusion in the law of succession and inheritance.
These discrepancies were eliminated through the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), as one of several further reforms in the Hindu Code. The concept was to provide a clear and standardized legal framework to adopt. Section 12 of this Act was the most important section that established the effect of adoption.
INTRODUCTION
Under the Hindu law, the law regarding adoption and succession is mainly regulated by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). Section 12 of HAMA makes it clear that the adopted child is considered to be the child of the adoptive parents in every aspect as of the date of adoption, and as a result, all the connections with the family of birth are terminated. The sole exception is in relation to property that had already vested in the adopted child before adoption. The issue always comes up whether maternal relatives of such an adopted child can take the succession right in the property of such an adopted child, or whether the property of such an adopted child can be successfully enforced by an adopted child. It has always been the position of the courts that these claims have no bearing where the adoption is duly proved. The list below includes critical judicial precedents that address this question.
CASES
1. Smt. Sitabai and Anr. v. Ramchandra, (1969) 2 SCC 544
The Legal impact of the adoption according to Hindu law was made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case, especially with respect to succession. The dispute had been caused by one adopted son trying to claim rights over the property of his biological father. The Court also decided that after a valid adoption has been made, a child is transplanted into its adoptive family and becomes a natural-born child of the family. As a result, rights and all liabilities to the natural family are cut off, and so are inheritance rights. The Court pointed out that the position is spelled out by Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which deems the adoptee to be the child of the adoptive parents by all means, with one exception of property vested before adoption. This decision is of paramount significance since, in subsequent cases, it has been consistently referred to as a basis to dismiss the claims of biological relatives, including relatives on the maternal side, who seek to establish succession rights by use of an adopted child. It was therefore clearly established in the case that adoption leads to total legal separation from the natural family, and this supports the point that only the adoptive family has rights of succession.
2. Kastoori Devi v. Chiranji Lal & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2593
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether an adopted child can claim a share in the biological father’s property after adoption. The natural family’s adopted son argued that he was a coparcener, but the Court clearly rejected this. It reaffirmed that under Hindu law, adoption is not merely a change of guardianship but a complete legal transfer of the child from the natural family to the adoptive family. As a result, the adopted child ceases to be part of the natural family and has no inheritance rights in their property, including coparcenary rights. The ruling explicitly states that an adopted person cannot claim rights of partition or succession in the biological estate once the adoption is finalized. This case highlights that adoption severs all ties with the natural family, parents, and maternal relatives alike, affecting succession rights for the adopted child. It remains a strong precedent, especially when biological or maternal relatives attempt to assert claims through the adopted child.
3. Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma, (2010) 8 SCC 372
The Hon’ble Supreme Court reviewed the area of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in specific reference to the rights of an adopted child in the natural family property. The Court reinstated the concept that adoption was a legal transplantation of the child of the natural family into the adoptive family, which established full rights of inheritance in the adoptive family and at the same time put out the rights of the biological family. The judgment clarified that the sole exception in Section 12 is where property is already vested in the child before adoption, and vested property is not affected by the adoption. Significantly, the decision removed the chances of maternal or paternal relatives of the adopted person to succeed to the adoptee, after adoption, unless it was in relation to property that had vested previously. The Court reinforced the argument that adoption brings about an absolute legal detachment of the natural family by making it clear that this exception is very limited. The ruling is a binding precedent in succession cases, especially when biological or maternal family members are trying to establish a right in a child adopted.
4. V. Sakthivel v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Kottravel Sethupathi case) 2024, (W.P. No.1386 of 2021)
The Madras High Court, in this case, had to decide on whether biological siblings and maternal relatives of a person who had been adopted had the right to claim the right to heirship once the adopted person had been adopted. The petitioners claimed that blood relations ought to be sufficient to enable them to succeed. The Court, nevertheless, strongly dismissed this reasoning and reiterated the established doctrine under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, in Section 12, that adoption breaks all connections with the biological family. It is believed that after the adoption is duly made, the lawful family is the adoptive family only and should be considered as the family under which succession and other inheritance rules can be applied. Adopted individuals cannot, therefore, make the biological siblings and other relatives of the mother legal heirs and claim their right to inheritance by means of adoption. The judgment is especially applicable in situations where maternal relatives seek a claim that is opposed to the legal implications of adoption because it reaffirms the fact that the lineage of inheritance only passes through the adoptive line. The case fortifies the legal position that adoption leads to the total breakage of the blood relationship, and no one could claim succession in the biological relationship.
5. Vishwambhar v. Sow Sunanda, (CRA.119-2025)
Here, the question presented to the Court was whether the property devolved by the maternal line can be considered as ancestral coparcenary property, and this thus gave rise to a birthright in favour of grandchildren or extended to maternal kinsfolk. The Parties presented the case that maternal inheritance ought to bear the same incidents as paternal ancestral property, which would confer automatic rights of succession on descendants. The Court, though did not agree with this argument and made it clear that property, which is taken over by the maternal line, does not necessarily take the character of property of the ancestors. Rather, it is retained as the self-acquired property of the person to whom it is being bequeathed, except where, in certain cases, it is converted into joint family property. Due to this, grandchildren or maternal relatives are not able to claim birthright to such property. The ruling is momentous as it restrained efforts by maternal kin to establish extended succession rights on the principle of maternal inheritance. The Court supported the idea that the claims of the heirs based on succession are restricted and that they do not go beyond the immediate heir by stating that this kind of property is self-acquired. This decision gives a good precedent that does not allow maternal relatives to claim coparcenary or birthright in maternal line property.
6. R. Ashok & Anr. v. R. Bhagavathi Ammal (Deceased), (1993) 1 MLJ 492
The High Court considered the legal implications of adoption by a widow, especially in succession. This was a matter of whether a child adopted by a widow could hold rights in the natural family’s property or whether all rights were destroyed at the moment of adoption. The Court was reaffirming the established rule that adoption, be it by a widow or otherwise, leads to the total dissolution of the adoptee from the biological family. After the adoption is effectively done, the adoptive family transplants the adopted and treats him/her like any other child of the family, including in succession. This results in the inability of the adopted child to inherit the natural family property, notwithstanding the fact that the adoption may have happened after the death of a maternal family member or under maternal-side guardianship. This case has been referred to continuously as an authority to deny such a claim of succession due to the biological family, especially the maternal relatives, when adoption has been involved. It supports the legal requirement of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, that adoption breaks all legal connections with the natural family so that the child adopted has only the adopted lineage.
CONCLUSION
The collective judicial stand coming out of the above precedents puts one principle in superabundant evidence, and that is adoption under Hindu law is not one of convenience or of partial transfer, but a total transformation of the law. The law of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, section 12 has been the foundation on which this doctrine is based, and it guarantees that the adopted child is fully absorbed into the adoptive family, whilst at the same time the child loses all his/her rights and duties towards his/her natural family. The adoption lineage with emphasis on the rejected succession claims by the maternal relatives or other biological kin has been repeatedly rejected by courts both in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, on the grounds that only an adoptive lineage is applicable.
The judiciary has even proven vigilant against efforts to water down the severance principle, even in those exceptional cases where the latter is attempted to be applied, like in widow-led adoptions, maternal-line inheritances, or to claim coparcenary rights. Jurisprudence highlights a robust policy rationale in society: to prevent conflicting claims, to guard the sanctity of adoption, and to offer certainty in the reasons of succession.
Accordingly, in the law, material relatives are categorically out of the right to inherit by or through an adopted child, except by the narrow exception of pre-adoption property vested in the statute.
