Adoption By Widow Would Relate Back To Date Of Husband's Death: SC While Holding Gift Deed As Null & Void
The Supreme Court held one Gift Deed as null void while applying the Doctrine of Relation Back or Relation Back principle which states that an adoption by a widow would relate back to the date of death of her husband.
The Court was dealing with Civil Appeals preferred against the common Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench passed in a case which emanated from Judgment and Decree of the Additional Senior Civil Judge.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, "Thus, going by proviso (c) to Section 12 of the Act of 1956, it is clear that an adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested him or her before the adoption. We have already taken note of the fact that the date of adoption was 16.07.1994. In the contextual situation it is also relevant to refer to the ‘Relation Back Principle’. The said principle is that adoption by a widow would relate back to the date of death of her husband, creating an immediate coparcenary interest in the joint property, meaning that the adopted child is treated as if they were born to the deceased husband, thus entitled to inherit his property."
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
One Bhavakanna Shahapurkar was the original owner of the Suit schedule properties and the Original Defendant - Parvatibai was his legally wedded wife. They had no issues in their wedlock and hence, with the consent of the Defendant, the said Bhavakanna married one Laxmibai without dissolving his first marriage. In his wedlock with second wife, he got two children and in 1982, he died, leaving behind two widows. After his demise, a Suit was filed by the first wife against the second wife and her children for partition and separate possession of properties. Based on a compromise, a Decree was drawn in the Suit and later in the final proceedings, the first wife (Defendant) was allotted and got share in the properties. The Appellant (Plaintiff) was adopted by the Defendant (first wife) in 1994 and the Adoption Deed was signed and registered by his natural father and Adoptee (Defendant) along with other witnesses.
The Appellant’s case was that he became the legal heir of the Defendant and hence, was entitled to half-share in the properties. According to him, the Defendant was not having absolute right or title to execute Sale Deed without his consent. Earlier, he demanded for partition of properties but the Defendant refused the same and this made him to institute a Suit. He sought to set aside the Sale Deed and Gift Deed executed by the Defendant in favour of other Defendants. During the pendency of this Suit, the Defendant died and the Trial Court partly decreed the Suit and declared the Gift Deed as null and void. However, it upheld the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant. The case went to the High Court and dismissed the Appellant’s plea and set aside the Trial Court’s Judgment. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “In such circumstances, in view of the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ and by applying the law laid down in Sripad Gajanan Suthankar’s case (supra) relied on with agreement in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar’s case (supra) the adoption by defendant No.1, the widow of Bhavakanna Shahpurkar, would relate back to the date of death of the adoptive father which is 04.03.1982 but then all lawful alienations made by defendant No.1 would be binding on the appellant/plaintiff. As held in Sripad Gajanan Suthankar’s case (supra) in paragraph 11 his right to impeach previous alienations would depend upon the capacity of defendant No.1 who made the alienation as well as on the nature of the action of alienation.”
The Court further held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is bound by the alienation and this is because of the cumulative effect of the Compromise Decree in the Suit and the allotment of share based on the same. It added that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court with regard to the Sale Deed warrant no interference and, in such circumstances, dismissal of plea filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff challenging the alienation under the registered Sale Deed, is only to be confirmed.
“In the light of the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ and the ratio in the decisions in Kasabhai Tukaram Karwar’s case (supra) and Sripad Gajanan Suthankar’s case (supra) we have already found that all lawful alienations made by defendant No.1 will bind the appellant/plaintiff and his right to impeach previous alienation would depend upon the capacity of the holder who make the alienation as well as on the nature of the action of alienation. The nature of action of alienation is gift and it is allegedly made in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. It is to be noted that defendant Nos.4 and 5 though got a case that earlier defendant No.1 executed a Will in regard to the said properties in their favour they themselves would admit and plead that subsequently the properties were given in gift as per registered gift deed dated 27.08.2008”, it said.
The Court observed that the very fact that the Defendants themselves relied on the Gift Deed would go to show that if at all there was a Will that was revoked and at any rate, it is a fact that even Defendants did not rely on the same. It also remarked that the High Court was carried away by the fact that the Gift Deed is a registered one. Moreover, it reiterated that, in order to be valid, acceptance of the gift is a pre-requisite.
“When the very case of one of the donees of the gift viz., the defendant No.4 that the property was in the possession of the donor herself till her death itself would reveal that the properties were not delivered and in other words in the legal sense there was no acceptance. The fact that defendant No.4 himself depose before the Court that he was not aware of the fact as to in whose possession the gifted properties lie with, would justify the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the finding that the Appellant is entitled to the properties being the sole legal heir of the deceased Defendant cannot be said to be faulty as it is the inevitable consequence of application for the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeal and restored the Trial Court’s Judgment holding the Gift Deed as null and void.
Cause Title- Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 14)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, AOR Rahul Pratap, Advocates Mahadev Ganpat Patil, and Shubham Rajhans.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal, AORs Mahesh Thakur, Anirudh Sanganeria, Advocates Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, S.K. Pandey, Awanish Kumar, Anshul Rai, Divija Mahajan, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Vipasha Singh, Gargi Singh, and Chinmay Deshpande.
