In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of daughters to ancestral property, the Supreme Court has upheld a previous judgment by the Allahabad High Court that dismissed a decades-old adoption claim, calling it a strategic attempt to deprive two women of their rightful inheritance. The case, which centers around disputed property in Uttar Pradesh, has highlighted how fabricated adoption deeds have historically been used to sideline female heirs.
The dispute arose after a man named Ashok Kumar asserted that he was adopted in 1967 by Bhuneshwar Singh, who had since passed away. Ashok used this claim to seek control over Singh’s estate. However, Singh had two biological daughters—Shiv Kumari Devi and Harmunia—who contested the validity of the adoption, alleging it was a deliberate fabrication intended to exclude them from inheriting their father’s property.
Ashok presented an adoption deed and a photograph as evidence of the adoption ceremony. However, both the High Court and the Supreme Court identified crucial shortcomings in his claim, particularly the absence of legal consent from Singh’s wife. Under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956, such consent is mandatory for a valid adoption to take place when the adoptive father is married.
The Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, criticized the attempt as a reflection of a broader social pattern used to deny women their property rights. “We are aware of how adoption claims like these are orchestrated in rural areas to sideline daughters and divert property. This is a clear example of that,” remarked the bench, acknowledging the persistent challenges faced by women in securing equal rights in patriarchal family structures.
The court noted that Singh’s wife was neither a signatory to the adoption deed nor proven to have been present at the ceremony. Witnesses failed to verify her participation, and even the photograph submitted did not confirm her involvement. These gaps in the evidence led both the High Court and the Supreme Court to invalidate the adoption.
Although the High Court acknowledged that the case had languished for over 40 years before reaching a conclusion, it emphasized that the procedural lapses and lack of compliance with legal requirements made the adoption claim untenable.
By reaffirming the necessity of the wife’s consent and dismissing the unsubstantiated claim, the Supreme Court has once again underscored the importance of legal safeguards for daughters’ inheritance rights—offering a strong message against manipulative practices that attempt to exclude women from ancestral property through fraudulent means.
