The Madras High Court has held that adoption is not recognised under Islamic law and cannot create inheritance rights under the Shariat and dismissed a partition claim filed by a woman seeking a share in property owned by her late maternal grandmother. 

A bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice V Lakshminarayanan ruled that neither the woman, one Fousia, nor her siblings had any legal right to inherit the estate while the said grandmother’s closer heirs under Muslim law remained alive.

“Adoption and its legal effects were abrogated by the express words of the Quran and have never since found a place in Muhammadan jurisprudence in connection with marriage, inheritance, or for any other legal purpose,” the court said on June 2. 

The high court was hearing a plea filed by Fousia against a 2023 trial court order dismissing her suit seeking partition of property owned by her late maternal grandmother, Piyaru Bi. 

Fousia claimed a share in the property through her mother, Gulab John, who had been raised as Piyaru Bi’s daughter, while the court was required to decide whether such a relationship amounted to a valid adoption under Muslim law and whether it could confer inheritance rights on Gulab John and her children.

Core issue: Was Gulab John adopted daughter?

Quran prohibits adoption, court says

In a detailed discussion running several pages, the bench examined Islamic jurisprudence, historical practices and Quranic verses dealing with adoption.

The judges explained that before Islam, Arabs followed a practice known as “Tabanni”, under which adopted children enjoyed the same inheritance rights as biological children. 

According to the court, the Quran abolished this system and emphasised the preservation of biological lineage.

The judgment also recounted the example of Zayd ibn Harithah, who had been adopted by Prophet Muhammad before the revelations and was later directed to revert to his biological lineage following the Quranic injunctions.

‘Kafala’ permits care, not inheritance

The high court distinguished adoption from the Islamic concept of “Kafala”, under which a person may undertake responsibility for the upbringing, education and maintenance of a child.

Under Kafala, however, the child retains his or her biological identity and inheritance rights continue to flow through biological parents rather than foster guardians.

The bench observed that while Islam encourages care and protection of children, it does not create inheritance rights through adoption.

Why grandchildren’s claim failed

Even assuming the family relationship asserted by the woman, the court held that Islamic inheritance principles prevented the woman and her siblings from staking a claim.

The judges referred to the doctrine of “Al-Hajb” or exclusion, under which more distant relatives are barred from inheritance when closer heirs are alive.

Since Gulab John herself was alive, her children, including the adopted one and legal heirs, could not claim inheritance rights over Piyaru Bi’s estate.

The court further observed that after rejecting the theory of adoption, the property would actually devolve upon surviving relatives who were closer in blood relationship to Piyaru Bi than the plaintiff and her siblings.

During the hearing, lawyers informed the high court that the children of Piyaru Bi’s siblings were alive and residing in Tiruvannamalai.

Oral gift claim, settlement deeds

The judgment also dealt with competing claims based on an alleged oral “Hiba” and various settlement deeds.

The high court found fault with certain conclusions reached by the trial court regarding the oral gift claimed by one of the legal heirs. 

It held that the trial court had relied on pleadings from another case without properly proving them in evidence.

However, the court clarified that these findings did not alter the outcome of the dispute.

The high court also examined the requirements of a valid gift under Muslim law and referred to Supreme Court precedent holding that declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession are essential elements of a valid gift.

Merely producing a registered settlement deed, the judges said, would not automatically satisfy the requirements of Islamic law.

Appeal dismissed

Ultimately, the high court upheld the dismissal of the partition suit, though for reasons different from those adopted by the trial court.

The court concluded that neither the woman nor her siblings had established any present legal right to seek partition of Piyaru Bi’s properties.

“If at all anyone has a right over the property of Piyaru Bi, it is only her heirs as per the Shariat,” the high court observed while dismissing the appeal.

The court added that any future proceedings concerning the property would have to be initiated by persons legally entitled under Muslim succession law and would also require impleading third parties who had acquired interests in the property through subsequent transactions.

(With inputs from Aparajita Prasad, she is an intern with The Indian Express)