### ADOPTION OF A FEMALE CHILD IS NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNDER ANCIENT HINDU LAW PRIOR TO 1956. SYNOPSIS * Core Question: Whether the adoption of a female child (specifically an *Angaliyat* child) was legally valid and conferred inheritance rights under Shastric Hindu Law prior to the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. * Factum of Adoption: The Plaintiff claimed she was adopted in 1949 by her mother’s second husband, Bhovanbhai, under a pre-condition of marriage. She asserted status as a Class-I heir to inherit his agricultural lands. * Legal Standing of Female Adoption: The High Court observed that according to ancient Hindu texts (Manu, Vasishta, and Saunaka), adoption was strictly restricted to male children for the religious purposes of performing *pinda-dan* and providing spiritual benefit. * Status of *Angaliyat*: The Court found that while the Plaintiff was absorbed into the stepfather’s household as an *Angaliyat* (foster child), this social arrangement did not transform her into a legally adopted daughter with rights of succession under ancient Hindu law. * Preservation of Biological Ties: The Plaintiff admitted to inheriting property from her biological father. Under Hindu law, a valid adoption requires the total severance of ties with the biological family and renunciation of inheritance therein, which was absent here. * Outcome: The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit, ruling that in the absence of a valid legal adoption, the Plaintiff could not claim ownership of the deceased’s properties through inheritance.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and possession of immovable properties belonging to the deceased, Bhovanbhai.

The Appellant’s mother, Maniben, married Bhovanbhai as his second wife in 1949, bringing the Appellant (then six months old) from her previous marriage as an Angaliyat child.

The Appellant claimed she was legally adopted by Bhovanbhai per a pre-marriage agreement.

The Respondents (Defendants), who are the brother’s son and grandsons of the deceased, claimed ownership based on a registered Will and argued that ancient Hindu law did not recognize the adoption of a female child.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding the adoption invalid under Shastric law despite the long cohabitation.

1. Whether, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, it was legally permissible to adopt a daughter under ancient Hindu Law?

2. Whether the Plaintiff proved her status as a legally adopted daughter entitled to inherit as a Class-I heir?

3. Whether the entry of the Appellant's name in revenue records created a legal title in her favor?

Shastric/Ancient Hindu Law texts, including the works of Manu, Vasishta, and the treatises Dattaka Mimamsa and Dattaka Chandrika, which establish that the object of adoption was to provide a "substitute for a son" for spiritual benefits (pind-dan) and lineage.

Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh [AIR 1933 PC 155] to emphasize that the essence of adoption was the spiritual necessity of a male child.

The principle that revenue entries do not confer title in the absence of a valid legal document or valid adoption, as seen in The Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department v. Boricha Ashokbhai Palabhai [LPA No. 1217 of 2023].

The Court observed that under ancient Hindu Law (pre-1956), adoption was strictly restricted to male children to satisfy religious obligations toward ancestors.

The Appellant was characterized as an Angaliyat (a child taken to a stepfather's home), which at most conferred the status of a "foster child" but lacked the legal status of an "adopted daughter" since the law then did not permit female adoption.

The Court further noted that the Appellant failed to prove she had renounced her biological family, as she admitted to receiving an inheritance from her biological father, which is inconsistent with the legal effect of a valid adoption.

The Court held that mutation entries in revenue records made on the mistaken theory of adoption were insufficient to create property rights in the absence of a valid legal foundation.

The Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, dismissed the First Appeal, and vacated all interim reliefs.