A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This judgment examines the legal consequences of a post-humous adoption by a widow, focusing on the interplay between Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the doctrine of relation-back. The dispute arose after the deceased owner’s two wives divided joint property by compromise; the first wife (who was issueless) later adopted the appellant. Subsequent to adoption, she executed a registered sale deed and a registered gift deed in respect of different parts of the suit property.
The appellant claimed that by virtue of adoption he became the legal heir of the deceased and thereby entitled to a half-share, seeking to set aside both the sale and gift. The trial court upheld the adoption, declared the gift void (restoring the B and C schedule properties to the appellant), but upheld the sale deed. The High Court reversed the trial court only in respect of the gift, validating it and dismissing the suit.
The Supreme Court, applying settled precedents (notably Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar and Kasabai Tukaram Karvar), affirmed that the adoption by a widow relates back to the date of the husband’s death but also reiterated that lawful alienations by the widow before adoption (or in certain circumstances after adoption but relying on prior vested rights) may bind the adopted son depending on the nature and capacity of the alienator.
On facts, the sale deed (A schedule) was sustained but the gift (B and C schedules) was held invalid for lack of the legal prerequisites of a gift most importantly absence of delivery/acceptance and for being inconsistent with the evidential record. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decree as to the gift and granted the appellant B and C schedule properties while confirming the sale.
Keywords: Adoption; Relation-back principle; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Gift — offer & acceptance; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Lawful alienation.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2025.
iii) Judgement Date: 02 January 2025.
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.
v) Quorum: Hon’ble C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ..
vi) Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J..
vii) Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 62 : 2025 INSC 14.
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — ss.13, 14; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — ss.12, 16; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.122.
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None.
x) Related Law Subjects: Succession Law; Family Law; Property Law; Transfer of Property; Civil Procedure (title/possession suits).
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
This dispute concerns inter-secting rules of succession and adoption law under Hindu law and the legal validity of post-adoption alienations by the adoptive mother. The factual matrix begins with Bhavakanna Shahapurkar (deceased) who left two widows; a partition suit ended in a compromise by which the first wife (defendant No.1) acquired a quantified share (9/32) in the joint property. Years later she executed a registered adoption of the appellant (on 16.07.1994) and thereafter, during her lifetime, executed a registered sale deed (13.12.2007) in favour of some respondents and a registered gift deed (27.08.2008) in favour of others.
The appellant contended that by virtue of the adoption and applying the relation-back principle he became the coparcener and legal heir of the deceased, entitled to a half share in the suit properties and entitled to impeach alienations not lawfully made. The defendants relied on Section 14(1) HSA (female’s absolute ownership) and Section 12(c) HAMA (effects of adoption not to divest estates vested before adoption) to assert that defendant No.1 had become absolute owner earlier and was competent to alienate.
The trial court accepted the adoption, set aside the gift (awarding B and C schedules to appellant) but upheld the sale; the High Court disturbed the trial court in respect of the gift, validating it. The Supreme Court was called upon to reconcile the doctrine of relation-back with the statutory protection in Section 12(c) and the nature of the two species of alienation (sale v. gift), and to determine whether the appellant could impeach these transactions. The Court proceeded by reviewing precedent on relation back and by close scrutiny of evidentiary prerequisites for a valid gift under Section 122, Transfer of Property Act.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
Bhavakanna died on 04.03.1982, leaving two wives; the first wife (defendant No.1 Parvatibai) obtained 9/32 share in A–D schedule properties pursuant to a compromise decree in OS No.266/1982 (Ext.D14). Parvatibai was issueless and she executed a registered adoption deed of the appellant on 16.07.1994 (Ext.P1). The appellant thereafter left his natural family and resided with the adoptive mother, giving up rights in his natal family.
During defendant No.1’s lifetime she executed a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 conveying the A schedule property to respondent Nos.1 & 2, and a registered gift deed dated 27.08.2008 purportedly conveying B and C schedule properties to respondent Nos.3 & 4. The appellant instituted OS No.122/2009 seeking partition and to set aside both alienations. At trial the adoption was held valid (Ext.P1 admitted and oral proof accepted).
Trial court declared the gift null and void (finding absence of delivery/acceptance and lack of knowledge of contents by donor) and vested B and C schedule properties in the appellant as sole legal heir of defendant No.1; but the trial court upheld the sale deed which the trial court found valid. The High Court reversed the trial court regarding the gift (upholding it) while confirming the sale; the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
During proceedings, defendant No.1 died and certain parties’ statuses changed; witness testimony from the donees indicated lack of possession and lack of knowledge about whereabouts/use of the gifted lands, and there was no evidence of delivery or acceptance of the gift.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether adoption by a widow relates back to the date of death of her husband and thereby confers on the adopted son a coparcenary/right to inherit the deceased’s property?
ii. Whether the adopted son can impeach alienations (sale/gift) made by the adoptive mother and to what extent are such alienations binding?
iii. Whether the sale deed dated 13.12.2007 executed by defendant No.1 is voidable/void vis-à-vis the adopted son?
iv. Whether the gift deed dated 27.08.2008 satisfies legal requisites of a valid gift under Section 122, Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the adoption (Ext.P1) being registered and admitted, by the doctrine of relation-back the appellant became the legal heir of Bhavakanna and thereby entitled to a share in the joint property; therefore defendant No.1 could not, after adoption, alienate the properties (sale/gift) so as to divest the appellant of his rights. The appellant alleged lack of consent and knowledge and claimed that the sale and gift were executed without his concurrence and that the gift lacked delivery/acceptance and was therefore void. The appellant relied upon authorities which recognize that relation-back creates immediate coparcenary rights entitling the adopted son to inherit but that such rights allow impeachment of alienations which were not lawful.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Respondents defended defendant No.1’s competence to alienate under Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act which treats a female’s property as her absolute property, and relied on Section 12(c), HAMA which protects estates vested in a person before adoption. They pressed the compromise decree (Ext.D14) that had allotted 9/32 share to defendant No.1, asserting she became absolute owner and hence had power to execute sale and gift. In respect of the gift, respondents relied on registration and recitals and contended there was no infirmity deserving cancellation.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i. Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — female Hindu’s property shall be her absolute property.
ii. Section 12(c), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him/her before the adoption.
iii. Section 122, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — definition and essentials of gift (offer and acceptance; acceptance during donor’s lifetime; delivery/possession).
iv. Relevant precedents: Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar, Kasabai Tukaram Karvar v. Nivruti, Mst. Deu v. Laxmi Narayan (on presumption arising from registered adoption deed).
I) JUDGEMENT
The Court accepted the trial court’s finding that the adoption was proved (registered deed Ext.P1, admitted by defendant No.1). Applying Mst. Deu v. Laxmi Narayan and Section 16 of HAMA, the Court affirmed that a registered adoption carries a rebuttable presumption of regularity. Turning to the relation-back doctrine (as explicated in Shripad Gajanan Suthankar and approved in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar), the Court reiterated two central rules:
(a) adoption by a widow relates back to the date of the husband’s death and creates an immediate coparcenary interest in the joint property for the adopted son;
(b) notwithstanding relation-back, lawful alienations effected by the widow (depending on capacity and nature of alienation) will bind the adopted son the adopted son’s right to impeach depends on whether the alienation was lawful and the extent of the widow’s transferable estate.
On facts, the Court observed that while defendant No.1 had acquired a specific share via the compromise (Ext.D14) and thereby had an absolute right in respect of those allotted shares, the two alienations required separate analysis.
As to the sale dated 13.12.2007, both trial and High Court had concurrently held the sale valid: the vendor (defendant No.1) had right to sell, consideration was paid (no contention of non-payment), and the mechanics of sale complied with law. Applying the doctrine of relation-back the Court held the appellant was bound by the sale and could not impeach it; the concurrent factual findings warranted no interference.
As to the gift dated 27.08.2008, the trial court found absence of delivery/acceptance and gaps in the donees’ evidence, including admissions that the donees never took possession, were unaware of occupiers, and that the donor possibly did not know the deed contents. Under Section 122, TPA, a gift requires offer and acceptance in donor’s lifetime and consummation by delivery/possession. The Supreme Court critiqued the High Court’s short reasoning which seemed to rely solely on registration, stressing that registration does not supplant substantive requirements of gift and that appellate interference without reasoned rebuttal of trial court’s detailed findings is unsustainable. The Court thus restored the trial court’s decree holding the gift void and restoring B and C schedule properties to the appellant as sole heir under relation-back.
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The operative ratio is twofold:
(1) Adoption by a widow relates back to the date of her husband’s death, conferring coparcenary rights on the adopted son;
(2) such relation-back does not ipso facto nullify all alienations by the widow lawful alienations (sale properly executed with requisite capacity and consideration) will bind the adopted son, whereas alienations lacking the legal ingredients (notably gifts without acceptance/delivery) cannot be sustained against the adopted son. The Court therefore upheld the sale (A schedule) and annulled the gift (B & C schedules).
b. OBITER DICTA
The Court emphasized principles on burden of proof and appellate reappraisal: a registered adoption deed raises a presumption under Section 16 HAMA which can be displaced only by cogent evidence; registration of a deed (sale or gift) does not relieve the litigant from proving substantive elements of the transaction (for instance, delivery/acceptance in a gift). The Court warned against appellate courts overturning detailed trial findings without offering sustainable, reasoned analysis, reiterating that interference is warranted only on perverse appreciation.
c. GUIDELINES
i. Where a widow validly adopts a son post the husband’s death, the adoption operates relation-back to the husband’s death, creating immediate coparcenary rights in the adopted son.
ii. An adopted son’s right to challenge previous alienations depends on (a) the capacity of the alienator and (b) the nature of the alienation; lawful sales by a widow that vested absolute right will bind the adopted son.
iii. For a gift, strict compliance with Section 122, TPA is required; registrability does not substitute for offer, acceptance, and delivery/possession. Documentary recital asserting possession is not conclusive in face of contrary oral evidence.
iv. Trial court findings that are reasoned and supported by evidence should not be upset lightly; appellate courts must explicate reasons when reversing such findings to avoid reversal by mere assertion.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces a balanced application of the relation-back doctrine: it vindicates the adopted son’s succession rights while acknowledging the protective effect of lawful transfers made by a widow where she possesses transferable rights. Practically, the judgment clarifies that registration and recitals cannot cure substantive defects in transactions particularly gifts and reasserts evidentiary strictness for acceptance/delivery under Section 122 TPA.
For practitioners, the ruling underlines the need to scrutinize capacity and mode of alienation when adoption occurs and cautions courts to respect trial courts’ factual findings unless clearly perverse. The decision harmonises succession, adoption and transfer law by restoring the primacy of substantive requisites over formal registration and by preserving stability in property rights where lawful alienations have occurred.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
- Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar, (1974) 2 SCC 156.
- Kasabai Tukaram Karvar & Ors. v. Nivruti (Dead) Through Legal Heirs & Ors., 2022 INSC 733 : [2022] 5 SCR 899.
- Mst. Deu & Ors. v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 701.
- Govind Hanumantha Rao Desai v. Nagappa alias Narahari Laxman Rao
- Deshpande and Sever, (1972) 1 SCC 515 (referenced in judgment).
b. Important Statutes Referred
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — ss.13, 14.
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — ss.12, 16.
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.122 (definition and essentials of gift).
