NEW DELHI: In a case that echoes the persistent struggle of daughters claiming equal rights to ancestral property, the Supreme Court has put its weight behind the Allahabad High Court’s decision to discard a decades-old adoption deed, calling it a “calculated move” to deny two sisters their inheritance.
At the heart of the legal fight was Ashok Kumar, who claimed he was adopted in 1967 by Bhuneshwar Singh, a deceased resident of Uttar Pradesh, to stake claim over Singh’s estate. Singh had two biological daughters—Shiv Kumari Devi and Harmunia—who contested the claim, saying the adoption was fabricated to cut them off from their father’s property.
While Ashok relied on an adoption deed and an old photograph to back his claim, both the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court found glaring gaps. Most damning was the absence of consent from Singh’s wife—a legal requirement for valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
SC calls out social reality
Justice Surya Kant, presiding over the case with Justice N Kotiswar Singh, minced no words during the hearing:
“We know this is a methodology adopted in rural areas to oust the daughters from rightful inheritance. We know how these adoption proceedings are carried out.”
The bench noted that such fabricated adoptions are often used to divert property away from daughters in patriarchal family setups.
What the courts found
The adoption deed dated August 9, 1967, was deemed invalid as it lacked the wife’s consent—a non-negotiable condition under the law.
The woman’s presence at the ceremony was not proven. Her signature was absent from the deed, and witnesses failed to confirm her participation.
The photograph produced didn’t establish her role in the ceremony either.
The high court had earlier expressed regret over the 40-year delay in adjudicating the matter but ultimately concluded that the evidence and procedural lapses rendered the adoption invalid.
“The mandatory requirement that a person who adopts a child must have the consent of his wife was absent,” the HC had noted.
