23. TP 2787-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2025 Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer ...Petitioner Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer alias Lalita Jayakumar Aiyer ...Deceased Mr. Tejas V. Dhotre for the Petitioner. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026 ORAL ORDER: 1. This matter was heard on 28th July, 2026 on the objection raised by the Registry on 13th August, 2025, that before granting the Letters of Administration without Will to the Petitioner in respect of the Deceased viz. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, the Petitioner would have to prove the fact of adoption as per law. 2. Mr. Dhotre, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had submitted that pursuant to the desire expressed by the adoptive parents of the Petitioner viz. Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, wife of Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer, who had no natural son or daughter of their own and wanted to adopt a son viz. the Petitioner Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer, who at that time was aged about 2 years and 8 months (Date of Birth: 7th January, 1986) being the biological son of Shri N. J. Gopalan and Smt. G. Jayanathi. Nikita Gadgil 1/7 23. TP 2787-25.doc Accordingly, Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer was on 5th September, 1988 given in the presence of relatives and well-wishers to Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and his wife Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, who had taken the Petitioner in adoption as their son on the said day. 3. Mr. Dhotre submits that the Adoption Deed dated 5th September, 1988, at pages 20 to 22 of the Petition clearly establishes that the adoption ceremony of the Petitioner from Mr. N. J. Gopalan and his wife Smt. G. Jayanathi to Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and his wife Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer took place on 5th September, 1988 not only as per the customs and traditions by performing of Dattahoma ceremony but also in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the “said Act”). 4. Mr. Dhotre has also drawn this Court’s attention to an affidavit filed by one Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer dated 7th October, 2025 and in particular in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit Mr. Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer has reiterated that the Petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer alias Lalita Jayakumar Aiyer and the deceased Jaykumar Subramanayam Aiyer, who expired on 13th January, 1996 and that in this regard, an unregistered Adoption Deed dated 5th Nikita Gadgil 2/7 23. TP 2787-25.doc September, 1988 adopting Ashok Jaykumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer was executed. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that all the government and other records show that Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer alias Lalita Jayakumar Aiyer and Jaykumar Subramanayam Aiyer, as parents of Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer. 5. Mr. Dhotre has also taken this Court to Sections 6, 7 and 11 of the said Act and submits that the said provisions have been complied with and that this Court may, therefore, hold that the adoption of the Petitioner by Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and his wife Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer is proved. 6. In support, Mr. Dhotre, relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Vanaja Vs. M. Sarla Devi (dead)1. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel and considered the submissions. 8. Section 6 of the said Act clearly provides for the requisites of a valid adoption as under :- “6. Requisites of a valid adoption- No adoption shall be valid unless—(i)the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption; 1 (2020) 5 SCC 307. Nikita Gadgil 3/7 23. TP 2787-25.doc (ii)the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii)the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter.” 9. Accordingly, under Section 7 of the said Act any male Hindu, who is of sound mind and not a minor, has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption, of course with the consent of his wife. 10. Under Section 11 of the said Act, there are other conditions for a valid adoption. 11. Section 11 of the said Act is also quoted as under:- “11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.— In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with:— (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son's son or son's son's son (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; (ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu daughter or son's daughter (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; (iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be adopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted; (iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted; (v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons; Nikita Gadgil 4/7 23. TP 2787-25.doc (vi)the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned child or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place or family where it has been brought up to the family of its adoption: Provided that the performance of datta homam shall not be essential to the validity of adoption.” 12. As can be seen, one of the other conditions, which is relevant in the facts of this case is that the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son's son or son's son's son, living at the time of adoption and the other condition applicable to the facts of this case is that the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents, although the performance of the Dattahoma is not essential for the validity of an adoption. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Vanaja Vs. M. Sarla Devi (dead) (supra) relied upon by Mr. Dhotre, clearly provides that Sections 7 and 11 of the said Act are mandatory for an adoption to be treated as valid adoption and that the two conditions that must be complied with are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption. 14. In the facts of this case as can be seen from the Adoption Deed annexed at pages 20 to 22 of the Petition that both Shri Jayakumar Nikita Gadgil 5/7 23. TP 2787-25.doc Subramanayam Aiyer and Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, respectively aged 40 and 38 years then, had the capacity to adopt Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer, who was then minor aged 2 years and 8 months (his date of birth being 7th January, 1986), which is also confirmed by the affidavit dated 7th October, 2025 of Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer, who knew Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, that the Petitioner was put in the lap of two of them by Shri N. J. Gopalan and Smt. G. Jayanathi on 5th September, 1988 at their house in Bangalore in the presence of relatives and well wishers assembled for the purpose of performing Dattahoma as per Hindu Brahmin Iyer customs and sweetmeats and prasad had been distributed to the assembled relatives and well wishers and Brahmins and feasted according to their family customs on the said occasion and that the two adoptive parents had taken the Petitioner in adoption as their son on that day, declaring that the child shall enjoy and inherit all right, title, interest and privileges as their son in accordance with the personal law applicable to them. 15. It is also observed from the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer that all the government and other records show that Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer alias Lalita Jayakumar Aiyer and Jaykumar Nikita Gadgil 6/7 23. TP 2787-25.doc Subramanayam Aiyer are the parents of Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer. 16. Therefore, in my view, the conditions of Sections 7 and 11 of the said Act having been met, the adoption of the Petitioner of Mr. Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer is proved. The objection raised by the Registry stands complied with. 17. The Registry to proceed with the issuance of the Letters of Administration without Will to the Petitioner, subject to any other objection(s) or requisition(s) or caveat(s). (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Nikita Gadgil 7/7 NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2026.09.01 19:57:03 +0530