Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a second appeal challenging the rejection of a suit seeking a declaration of ownership over disputed property. The court ruled that the appellant failed to establish that the property in question was joint family property and held that the respondent’s pre-adoption rights to the property remained intact despite being given in adoption. The division bench upheld the first appellate court’s decision, which had reversed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff.

The case stemmed from a property dispute among family members concerning ownership and possession. The original plaintiff sought a declaration that the suit property belonged to the joint family and that the respondent, who was given in adoption, had no right over it. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the property was self-acquired and belonged to the respondent. The present appeal was filed challenging the appellate court’s ruling.

The dispute revolved around a property purchased in the name of the respondent, defendant no.1, before he was given in adoption. The plaintiff, along with other family members, claimed that the property was acquired from joint family income and was intended to be part of the joint family estate. They contended that since the respondent had been adopted into another family, he could not claim rights over the property.

The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the property was purchased in his name by his biological father using his independent income. He argued that even after his adoption, a mutation entry in the revenue records continued to reflect his name, represented by his adoptive mother. This, he claimed, demonstrated his father’s intent to treat the property as his exclusive ownership.

The trial court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and ruled that the property belonged to the joint family. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the property was purchased in the respondent’s name and remained in his name post-adoption. The appellate court concluded that the suit property was never part of the joint family estate and that the respondent’s rights could not be divested by adoption.

The Bombay High Court examined the legal principles governing property rights before and after adoption. It recorded that “adoption severs all ties of the adopted person with his biological family, except for property vested in him prior to adoption.” The court observed that the property in question was registered in the respondent’s name before his adoption and that there was no evidence of joint family ownership.

The judgment noted that “the burden of proving that a property is joint family property lies on the party asserting it.” The court found that no evidence had been presented to establish that the property was purchased from joint family income or that the family had a tradition of holding property collectively.

The bench also relied on the revenue records, stating that “the continued entry of the respondent’s name in the revenue records, even after adoption, indicates the intent of the biological father to vest the property in him.” It further held that the fact that the respondent was a minor at the time of purchase did not automatically render the property joint family property.

Citing precedent, the court referred to Dattatraya Sakharam Devli v. Govind Sambhaji Kulkarni and Bai Kesarba v. Shivsangji Bhimsangji Thakor, reiterating that an adopted son relinquishes all ties with his biological family but retains ownership of any property vested in him before adoption. The court recorded: “Adoption does not divest a person of self-acquired property or property lawfully vested in him prior to adoption.”

Regarding the trial court’s findings, the High Court noted that the first appellate court had rightly interfered, as the trial court had failed to consider legal principles governing pre-adoption property rights. It recorded that “the appellate court was correct in holding that the trial court erred in assuming the property was joint family property without any supporting evidence.”

The Bombay High Court upheld the first appellate court’s judgment and dismissed the second appeal. It confirmed the following directives:

• The plaintiff’s claim for ownership over the suit property was rejected.

• The respondent’s title over the property was upheld as lawful and unaffected by adoption.

• The mutation entry in favor of the respondent was deemed valid and reflective of ownership.

• The suit was dismissed, and the appellate court’s order setting aside the trial court’s decree was confirmed.

The court concluded that “there is no reason to interfere with the appellate court’s findings, as the suit property was lawfully vested in the respondent before his adoption and could not be divested by subsequent legal status.”

Case Title: Nathaji @ Sudhakar Tayaba Katkar v. Shri Vithal Satava Katkar & Ors.
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 637 of 2011
Bench: Justice Gauri Godse

[Read/Download order]