Supreme Court clarifies inheritance rights of adopted children in Christian families: Pharez John Abraham vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 2, 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a family settlement be valid without a registered deed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while also considering the inheritance rights of adopted children in Christian families. This case revolves around a property dispute within a Christian family, specifically focusing on the rights of adopted children and the validity of a family settlement. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute stemming from the estate of one John D. Abraham, who died intestate in 1964. He was survived by his wife, Esther Abraham, and four children: Pharez John Abraham, Triza Kalyani John, Vasanthi, and Maccabeaus. Triza Kalyani John married a Hindu man in 1979, converting to Hinduism and changing her name to A.S. Meenakshi. She passed away in 1986. Her husband and children, the original plaintiffs, filed a suit in 1987 seeking partition of the property, claiming a share through Triza Kalyani John. The defendants, including Pharez John Abraham, contested this claim, arguing that Triza Kalyani John had relinquished her share in exchange for money and gold ornaments at the time of her marriage and conversion.

Further complicating matters, Vasanthi and Maccabeaus were later revealed to be adopted children of John D. Abraham. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, agreeing with the defendants that Triza Kalyani John had relinquished her rights and that the suit was time-barred. However, the High Court overturned this decision, granting shares to all the children, including the adopted ones. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The original suit was filed in the Court of the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, holding that Triza Kalyani John had relinquished her claim and that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs and original defendant nos. 3 to 5 filed appeals before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court allowed both appeals, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a share and that the adopted children were also entitled to a share in the property. The High Court directed the drawing of a preliminary decree accordingly. This decision of the High Court was then challenged before the Supreme Court by original defendant no. 2.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Indian Succession Act, which governs the distribution of property when a person dies intestate (without a will). The court also considered the concept of family settlements and whether they require registration to be valid. The court also briefly touched upon the concept of adoption in Christian law, noting that there is no prohibition against it, unlike Hindu law.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Original Defendant No. 2):

• The appellants argued that Triza Kalyani John had relinquished her share in the property of John D. Abraham by accepting Rs. 50,000 and some gold ornaments at the time of her marriage and conversion to Hinduism.
• They contended that this family settlement was valid even without a registered deed, as family settlements can be oral.
• The appellants also argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as John D. Abraham died in 1964, and Triza Kalyani John never claimed her share during her lifetime. They argued that in Christianity, the property is divided immediately after the death of the person.
• They further argued that the High Court erred in granting a share to defendant nos. 3 to 5, who are the adopted children of John D. Abraham.
• It was also argued that defendant nos. 3 to 5 did not file a counter claim and therefore their appeal was not maintainable.

Arguments by the Respondents (Original Plaintiffs and Supporting Defendants):

• The respondents argued that there was no registered deed of relinquishment by Triza Kalyani John, and therefore, she did not give up her share.
• They contended that even non-Christians (Hindus in this case) can claim partition in the property of a Christian who died intestate, as per the Indian Succession Act.
• They argued that the High Court was correct in holding that the suit was within the period of limitation because it was filed within one year of the death of Triza Kalyani John.
• They submitted that defendant no.3 and the deceased Maccabeaus were the children of John D. Abraham from his marriage with St. Pushpa and even if they were adopted children, they are entitled to a share.
• They argued that in a suit for partition, every heir has a right and can claim a share even without filing a counter claim.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the plaintiffs would have a share in the suit property being the heirs of deceased Triza Kalyani John?
2. Whether defendant nos. 3 to 5 would have any share in the suit property belonging to John D. Abraham?
3. Whether the appeal at the instance of original defendant nos. 3 to 5 was maintainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court relied on Benoy Kumar Mondal v. Panchanon Majumdar [AIR 1956 Calcutta 177]* to support the view that non-Christians can claim partition in the property of a Christian who died intestate.

✓ The Court relied on Philips Alfred Malvin v. Y.J. Gonsalvis [AIR 1999 Kerala 187]* to support the view that adoption by a Christian couple is permissible.

✓ The Court relied on Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma [(2003) 1 SCC 34]* to support the view that an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The conduct of Triza Kalyani John in not claiming her share in the property during her lifetime, which supported the claim that she had relinquished her rights.
• The fact that there is no prohibition against adoption in Christian law, allowing the adopted children to inherit.
• The principle that in a suit for partition, all co-sharers have a right to claim their share, and can appeal if the suit is dismissed.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court gave more weight to the factual aspects of the case, such as the conduct of Triza Kalyani John and the evidence of the family settlement, while also considering the legal aspects of adoption and the rights of co-sharers.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the suit was barred by limitation, stating that the cause of action arose upon the death of the mother of the plaintiffs. The Court also rejected the argument that the adopted children were not entitled to a share, relying on the fact that there is no prohibition against adoption in Christian law.

The Court modified the High Court’s judgment, holding that the original plaintiffs were not entitled to any share, and that original defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 & 5 (jointly) would each have a 1/3rd share in the suit property. The court emphasized that the conduct of Triza Kalyani John during her lifetime indicated that she had relinquished her share.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“…the learned trial Court rightly accepted the defence on behalf of original defendant nos. 1 & 2 that the said Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi was paid Rs.50,000/­ and some gold ornaments at the time of her marriage with original plaintiff no.1 and the said Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi relinquished her share in the suit property.”

“By virtue of adoption, a child gets transplanted into a new family whereafter he or she is deemed to be member of that family as if he or she were born son or daughter of the adoptive parents having same rights which natural daughter or son had.”

“…original defendant no.2, original defendant no.3 and original defendant nos. 4 & 5 (jointly) shall have 1/3rd share each in the suit property.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Family settlements, even if not registered, can be valid if there is sufficient evidence to prove them.
• Adopted children in Christian families have the same inheritance rights as biological children.
• In a suit for partition, every co-sharer has a right to claim their share and can appeal if the suit is dismissed.
• The conduct of a party can be a significant factor in determining their rights in a property dispute.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order and directed that the suit property be divided into three equal parts among original defendant no. 2, original defendant no. 3, and original defendant nos. 4 & 5 (jointly).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that adopted children in Christian families have the same inheritance rights as biological children. The court also upheld the validity of family settlements even without a registered deed, if there is sufficient evidence to prove the same. This case clarifies the position of law on the inheritance rights of adopted children in Christian families and also reiterates the importance of considering the conduct of the parties in property disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pharez John Abraham vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam clarifies the inheritance rights of adopted children in Christian families, affirming their equal status with biological children. The court also upheld the validity of family settlements based on evidence and the conduct of the parties. The Court modified the High Court’s order and held that the original plaintiffs were not entitled to any share, and that original defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 & 5 (jointly) would each have a 1/3rd share in the suit property.