In a notable judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the provisions of Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, concerning the rights of adopted children, cannot be invoked unless the validity of the adoption is firmly established by the competent court. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari delivered the judgment while dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 2564 of 2024, filed by Kandregula Rama Babu and others.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a longstanding property dispute where the plaintiffs, represented as respondents in the petition, sought the recovery of possession of certain properties and the cancellation of sale deeds executed by the widow of the deceased, Kondapalli Venkata Ratnam. The petitioners, purportedly adopted by the deceased’s widow, claimed that their rights were protected under Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
The petitioners filed an interlocutory application under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), requesting the trial court to treat issues 3 to 8 as preliminary ones. These issues primarily related to the legal implications of adoption and whether the sale deeds executed by the deceased’s widow could be annulled.
Legal Issues and Arguments
1. Validity of Adoption: The petitioners asserted that the legal consequences of adoption, particularly the protection against divesting vested properties under Section 12(c), could be decided without delving into disputed facts.
2. Preliminary Issues: The petitioners argued that determining the legal implications under Section 12(c) would resolve significant aspects of the case at an early stage, potentially avoiding protracted litigation.
However, the respondents contended that the very fact of adoption was disputed and required a thorough examination of evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the adoption and its validity.
Observations by the Court
Justice Tilhari, while dismissing the petition, underscored the settled legal principle that courts cannot adjudicate on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. He observed:
“The legal consequences of a valid adoption can be a pure question of law. However, in the present case, the adoption itself is under challenge. Unless the validity of adoption is determined, the question of applying Section 12(c) does not arise.”
The court emphasized that issues 3 to 8 raised by the petitioners were not purely legal but involved factual determinations, including the factum of adoption, the circumstances of property transactions, and the implications of earlier judgments.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta (2006), Justice Tilhari stated:
“The Code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue. Where the decision on a question of law depends upon disputed facts, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.”
The court also highlighted another Supreme Court precedent, Pandurang Shankar Shivankar v. Muktabai w/o Govindrao Mate (2014), which held that proving the fact of adoption involves both legal and factual inquiries, particularly the essential elements of giving and taking during the adoption process.
Decision
The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss the petitioners’ interlocutory application. Justice Tilhari concluded:
“Without a finding on the validity of adoption, the legal consequences under Section 12(c) cannot be examined. The issues raised are mixed questions of law and fact, requiring evidence and trial for their determination.”
The court clarified that its observations were confined to the interlocutory stage and would not prejudice the trial of the main suit.
Key Details
– Case Title: Kandregula Rama Babu and others vs. Kondapalli Venkata Lakshmi and others.
– Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 2564 of 2024.
– Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Prabhala Raja Sekhar.
– Presiding Judge: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari.
