HINDU LAW — ADOPTION — EFFECT OF ADOPTION ON COPARCENARY INTEREST IN FAMILY OF BIRTH — HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 (78 OF 1956), S. 12, PROVISO (b) — MITAKSHARA LAW — VESTED PROPERTY AND UNDIVIDED COPARCENARY INTEREST — DISTINCTION — COPARCENARY INTEREST ARISING BY BIRTH NOT SAVED BY PROVISO (b) UNLESS PROPERTY HAD VESTED IN THE ADOPTEE BEFORE ADOPTION — REFERENCE ANSWERED.

 ANUMOLU NAGESWARA RAO v. A.V.R.L. NARASIMHA RAO AND OTHERS

High Court for the State of Telangana — Full Bench

Letters Patent Appeal No. 204 of 2001 — Decided on 27 June 2023

Coram: P. Naveen Rao, B. Vijaysen Reddy and Nagesh Bheemapaka, JJ.

HINDU LAW — ADOPTION — EFFECT OF ADOPTION ON COPARCENARY INTEREST IN FAMILY OF BIRTH — HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 (78 OF 1956), S. 12, PROVISO (b) — MITAKSHARA LAW — VESTED PROPERTY AND UNDIVIDED COPARCENARY INTEREST — DISTINCTION — COPARCENARY INTEREST ARISING BY BIRTH NOT SAVED BY PROVISO (b) UNLESS PROPERTY HAD VESTED IN THE ADOPTEE BEFORE ADOPTION — REFERENCE ANSWERED.

Headnote

Hindu Law — Adoption — Effect on property rights in family of birth — S. 12, proviso (b), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — On adoption, the adopted child severs ties with the family of birth and becomes a member of the adoptive family. Proviso (b) preserves property which had already vested in the adopted child before adoption, subject to obligations attaching to ownership, including maintenance of relatives in the family of birth. The expression “property which vested” cannot be equated with every interest arising by birth in an undivided Mitakshara coparcenary. Although a coparcener acquires an interest in coparcenary property by birth, that interest remains unspecified and fluctuates with changes in the composition of the coparcenary. A definite share crystallises on partition. An undivided coparcenary interest, therefore, is not property already vested in the adoptee within the meaning of proviso (b), so as to survive adoption. Conversely, property already allotted on partition, self-acquired property, property acquired under a will, property inherited from the natural father or another ancestor or collateral, and property held as sole surviving coparcener, if vested before adoption, continues to belong to the adoptee after adoption, subject to the obligations attaching to its ownership. Division Bench decision in Yarlagadda Nayudamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 AP 19, held not to state the correct law. Reference answered accordingly. (Paras 16–17, 23–27)

Statutory provisions considered: Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, S. 12 and proviso (b); Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S. 6.

Cases considered:

1. S.Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591 — scope and functions of a statutory proviso.

2. Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu, (1991) Supp (2) SCC 228 — contextual meaning of “vest” and “vested”.

3. Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti, AIR 1967 SC 1761 — effect of adoption and severance of ties with the family of birth.

4. Sitabai v. Ramchandra, (1969) 2 SCC 544 — legal consequences of adoption.

5. Vasant v. Dattu, AIR 1987 SC 398 — distinction between vesting and the effect of adoption on a joint family estate.

6. Man Singh v. Ram Kala, (2010) 14 SCC 350 — fluctuating interest in joint family property and ascertainment of share upon partition.

7. Santosh Kumar Jalan v. Chandra Kishore Jalan, AIR 2001 Pat 125 — interpretation of proviso (b) to S. 12.

8. Yarlagadda Nayudamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 AP 19 — overruled in principle by the Full Bench's contrary interpretation.

Result: Reference answered in favour of the view that an adoptee loses the undivided coparcenary interest in the family of birth upon adoption, but retains property already vested in him before adoption within the meaning of proviso (b) to S. 12.

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati The Proddatur Arya Vysya Sabha vs A Naga Rajesh on 14 November, 2025

 

1. Mandatory Requirements of Verification of Pleadings and Supporting Affidavits (Section 139 and Order VI Rule 15 CPC)

• Core Issue: What is the legal purpose of verifying pleadings and furnishing a supporting affidavit, and whether casual or non-sworn affidavits satisfy the requirements of Section 139 and Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC?

• Holding: The purpose of verification is to fix responsibility for averments and allegations made in pleadings, clearly demarcating personal knowledge from information received and believed to be true. Filing a supporting affidavit is not an empty formality and cannot be done in a casual or negligent manner; affidavits that are not sworn before authorized officers in accordance with Section 139 and Order VI Rule 15 CPC are invalid.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12.

• Ratio:

  "The filing of the affidavit is again not a formality and a party has to be extremely careful of what it is stating on oath. The same cannot be filed in a casual and negligent manner." (Paragraph 11)

2. Violation of Caveat Principles and Ex Parte Orders (Section 148A CPC)

• Core Issue: What is the legal implication under Section 148A of the CPC when an ex parte interim order or injunction is granted by a court despite the filing of a valid caveat?

• Holding: A caveat is founded on the principle of Audi Alteram Partem requiring both sides to be heard. Granting interim relief without notice when a valid caveat is on record is a violation of principles of natural justice and warrants setting aside the impugned ex parte order.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 13 and 14.

• Ratio:

  "Apparently, despite the petitioners herein/R3, R1 and R4 filed Caveat... which is valid till 16.09.2025, the trial Court vide Order, dated 09.09.2025 directed both parties to maintain status quo... which is violation of principles of natural justice." (Paragraph 14)

Supreme Court of India Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

 

• Whether the Original Side Rules of a Chartered High Court framed under the Letters Patent prevail over the provisions of the CPC, and whether subsequent CPC amendments automatically apply to the Original Side.

• Holding: Rules of the Original Side framed under the Letters Patent govern proceedings in the exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. However, references to provisions like Orders VI and VII of the CPC in the Original Side Rules (such as Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Calcutta High Court Rules) are general references that incorporate amendments to those orders, and procedural requirements must be harmoniously read.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, and 16.

• Ratio:

  "It was clearly the intention of the High Court when it framed the Original Side Rules that the plaint should be in conformity of the provisions of Order VI and Order VII of the Code. By necessary implication reference will also have to be made to Section 26 and Order IV of the Code which, along with Order VI and Order VII, concerns the institution of suits." (Paragraph 16)

2. Nature of Procedural Requirements Introduced by the CPC Amendments (Filing of Affidavit and Verification)

• Core Issue: Are the amended statutory requirements under Section 26(2), Order IV Rule 1(3), and Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC (mandating supporting affidavits for plaints) mandatory such that non-compliance renders a plaint non-est?

• Holding: No. These amendments are procedural in nature and directory. Non-compliance at the initial stage does not automatically render the plaint invalid or non-est; the defect is curable and relates back to the original date of presentation.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 12, 13, 16, and 17.

• Ratio:

  "...procedural enactments ought not to be construed in a manner which would prevent the Court from meeting the ends of justice in different situations. The intention of the legislature in bringing about the various amendments in the Code... were aimed at eliminating the procedural delays... but being procedural in nature, they are directory in nature and non-compliance thereof would not automatically render the plaint non-est..." (Paragraph 16)

M/S Patil Automation Private Limited vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited on 17 August, 2022

 

1. Mandatory Nature of Pre-Litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

• Core Issue: Whether the statutory pre-litigation mediation contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (as amended in 2018) is mandatory or directory for commercial suits that do not contemplate urgent interim relief.

• Holding: Mandatory. Section 12A is imperative in nature. A plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief must exhaust pre-litigation mediation before instituting a commercial suit. Non-compliance must result in the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 43, 53, 63, 66, and 84.

• Ratio:

  "Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules... The right of suit itself will fructify only when the conditions in Section 12A are fulfilled." (Paragraph 43)

2. Suo Motu Power of Courts to Reject Plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

• Core Issue: Must the power to reject a plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A be exercised only upon an application by the defendant, or can the court act suo motu?

• Holding: The court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 suo motu at the initial stage before issuing summons if it finds the suit is barred by law (including non-compliance with Section 12A).

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 67 and 68.

• Ratio:

  "Order VII Rule 11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application... the power under Order VII Rule 11 is available to the court to be exercised suo motu." (Paragraph 68)

3. Inadmissibility of Post-Institution Mediation as Substantial Compliance

• Core Issue: Can a court cure a violation of Section 12A by keeping the suit in abeyance post-institution and referring the parties to mediation?

• Holding: No. In a suit where no urgent interim relief is contemplated, there can be no "substantial compliance" through post-institution reference to mediation. The suit must be barred and visited with the rejection of the plaint.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 48 and 63.

• Ratio:

  "In regard to a suit covered under Section 12A of the Act, namely, in a suit where interim relief is not contemplated, there can be no substantial compliance by way of post institution reference to mediation." (Paragraph 63)

4. Prospective Operation of the Judgment

• Core Issue: Given the conflicting views among High Courts and the teething problems of a newly amended law, should the declaration that Section 12A is mandatory be applied retrospectively or prospectively?

• Holding: The declaration of law making Section 12A mandatory is made effective prospectively from August 20, 2022, to protect past transactions, avoid unnecessary reopening of closed matters, and allow stakeholders to become informed.

• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 83 and 84.

• Ratio:

  "We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11... We, however, make this declaration effective from 20.08.2022 so that concerned stakeholders become sufficiently informed." (Paragraph 84)

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati K. Mohammed Arif vs K. Mohammed Fairoz on 5 June, 2025

 

1. Mandatory Procedure for Non-Numbering and Multiple Returns of a Plaint

• Core Issue: What is the mandatory procedure to be followed by the registry and the trial court when a plaint is returned multiple times for uncured objections?
  
  
• Holding: Under Rule 22 (New) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and established judicial guidelines, when a plaint is returned more than three times and objections remain uncured to the satisfaction of the registry, the court must mandatorily list the matter in the open court for a judicial hearing rather than continuing ministerial returns.
  
  
• Key Paragraphs: Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12.
  
  
• Ratio:
  
  

  "Since the trial Court has already returned the Plaint more than three times, exercising its power under Rule-22 (new) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, the trial Court ought to have listed the matter for hearing in the open Court and decide accordingly as per law." (Paragraph 12)

  
  

2. Judicial Function vs. Ministerial Function in Determining Suit Maintainability at Filing Stage

• Core Issue: Can the registry or filing section decide the maintainability of a suit or insist that explanations be given directly to the registry before registration?
  
  
• Holding: No. Deciding the maintainability of a suit is a judicial function exclusively vested in the Presiding Judge, not a ministerial function for the filing section. If an objection regarding maintainability is raised, the matter must be placed before the court for a judicial decision.
  
  
• Key Paragraphs: Paragraph 8, 9, and 10.
  
  
• Ratio:
  
  

  "Deciding the maintainability of the suit is a judicial function and not a ministerial function. Consequently, even if there be a valid objection to the maintainability of a suit, the plaint is not to be refused registration nor is to be returned by the Registry but is to be placed before the court, pointing out such objection." (Paragraph 10, quoting Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja)