Adopted children have no right on previous family's property: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court says that when a child is adopted, he gets all the rights of that family that natural children have. In such a situation, if they are given the rights of the family from where they have been adopted, then it would be wrong.

The Kalburgi bench of the Karnataka High Court said in a decision that the adopted son does not have the right to share in his paternal family. Rejecting the appeal of Bhishmaraj, a resident of Secunderabad, Justice CM Joshi said that in another case including M Krishna became M Ramchandra, the High Court had already ordered that on adoption, the person to be adopted should be treated as a member of that family. Gets all the rights, which are of a naturally born son. In this case, after being adopted, all the rights of that child with the family from where it was adopted end.

The judge said in his order that, "It clearly means that he loses the right of inheritance in the paternal family properties." In fact, Bhishmaraj, son of Pandurangappa Ellur and Radhabai, was adopted by Hyderabad-based couple P Vishnu and P Shantabai. The adoption process was completed on 22 December 1974, at that time Bhishmaraj was 24 years old. Bhishmaraj's real father died in the year 2004. In the same year, he reaches the court of Raichur against the decision of adoption.

Bhishmaraj said that he was adopted without his consent. His mother, Behar and brother contested this claim and said that they had given their consent at the time of the adoption. After this the suit was dismissed on December 10, 2007. On January 22, 2010, Bhishmaraj's appeal was also rejected. After this, he reached the High Court against both these orders. He said that he is the co-heir of his paternal family and hence he has a right in the family properties.

On the other hand, his mother, brother and sister say that even a person above 15 years of age can be adopted in the Arya Vaishya community to which he belongs. While hearing the matter, the court ordered that if we accept Bhishmaraj's appeal, it would directly mean that the adopted child would also have a share in his ancestral property, which would be wrong.