Relator filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the City of New Orleans to produce relator’s original birth certificate and judgment of adoption for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not relator may have inherited property from his biological father and mother. Following trial of the rule to show cause, the registrar was directed to produce the birth certificate and judgment of adoption for relator’s inspection. Respondent has appealed suspensively.
The record reflects that relator was adopted by a judgment executed on or about April 1, 1934, and that, through conversations with his adoptive grandmother from the time he was five years old, he had been led to believe his natural parents were people of property. The plaintiff is now forty-one years old. His adoptive father is deceased and his adoptive mother is seventy years of age.
*575The trial judge opened the sealed envelope and examined the documents. He saw no reason why these documents should not be made available to the adopted child. The envelope was then resealed. The records sought by relator are in the possession of the appellant by virtue of LSA-R.S. 40:201 and 202.1
Appellant contends: (1) the legislature intended that all adoption records should be handled in a most confidential manner; (2) the adopted child seeking the record of his biological parents should be compelled to come forward with substantial proof of the necessity for divulging this information; and (3) the information pertaining to adoptions should be released only to the court and not to the adopted child.
We agree with appellant’s first contention. As set out in R.S. 46:65 G,2 as well as R.S. 9:422 through 441 inclusive, and particularly R.S. 9:437,3 the legislature intended all adoption records should be handled in a most confidential manner.
Relative to defendant’s second contention, the right of anyone to see the documents once sealed is provided for in R.S. 40:209 A which provides in pertinent part:
“This sealed package shall be opened only on the order of a competent court either upon its own motion, or upon the *576demand of the adopted child or the adoptive parent, or the department.” LSA-R.S. 40:209 A.
This statute clearly specifies the circumstances under which the order should issue: (1) upon the court’s own motion, or upon the demand of (2) the adopted child, (3) the adoptive parent, or (4) the department. By specifying the record shall be produced by court order upon the demand of the adopted child, it appears the adopted child may have the unqualified right to the court order without giving any reason therefor. However, that question is not before us. Here relator has given a valid reason for his demand.
As contended by relator, the denial of a right of inspection would have the effect of violating the right of inheritance the adopted child may have as a forced heir in the successions of his blood parents. In addition to becoming a forced heir of his adopting parents, under the provisions of Civil Code Article 214 an adopted child retains his right to inherit from his legitimate biological parents and other blood relatives. In pertinent part the article provides :
“ . . . the adopted person and his lawful decedents are relieved of all of their legal duties and divested of all of their legal rights with regard to the blood parent or parents and other blood relatives, except the right of inheritance from them.’’ LSA-C.C. Art. 214. (Emphasis ours).
Relative to appellant’s third contention, it would serve no useful purpose to permit the court to view the adoptive records and not disclose the contents to the person who by law is entitled to its production. We are of the opinion the proper interpretation of this provision is simply that the records cannot be divulged to those persons entitled to seek them except by court'order. Every adopted child in this state could have an heirship interest in the successions of his biological parents. In the absence of knowledge as to whom these parents might be, the child is effectively prevented from seeking his rightful share in those successions.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.