SRI MAHESH vs. SANGRAM & ORS.

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 62 : 2025 INSC 14, resolved a nuanced conflict concerning the rights of an adopted son over the properties alienated by his adoptive mother after his adoption. The Court intricately analyzed the Doctrine of Relation Back under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and held that the adoption of the appellant by his widowed adoptive mother related back to the date of death of her husband, thereby vesting in the adopted son the right to coparcenary property as if he was born to the deceased. However, the Court clarified that lawful alienations made by the adoptive mother prior to adoption or in exercise of her absolute ownership would bind the adopted son. The case hinged on whether the adoptive mother held absolute title over certain properties acquired by compromise and whether the sale deed and gift deed executed later were legally valid. The Court upheld the sale deed due to the mother’s lawful absolute ownership. But it invalidated the gift deed for lacking delivery and acceptance, crucial under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, while affirming the lower court’s findings on the sale, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgment on the gift deed and restored the trial court’s verdict declaring the gift void and vesting the schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties with the adopted son.

Keywords: Adoption, Absolute Ownership, Relation Back Doctrine, Valid Gift, Adoption and Succession, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, Property Alienation, Sale Deed, Gift Deed

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 36-37 of 2025

iii) Judgement Date: 02 January 2025

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

vi) Author: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar

vii) Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 62 : 2025 INSC 14

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

  • Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
  • Section 12(c) and Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
  • Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects: Hindu Law, Property Law, Civil Law, Family Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises out of a familial property dispute rooted in Hindu succession laws, the rights of an adopted child, and the legitimacy of transactions made by an adoptive mother post-adoption. The core dispute concerned the effect of the adoption of the appellant Mahesh on the alienations made by his adoptive mother, Parvatibai, in the form of a sale deed and a gift deed, executed several years post-adoption. The trial court and appellate court delivered contradictory judgments, especially concerning the gift deed. The issue before the Supreme Court revolved around the extent of the adoptive mother’s ownership, the operation of the Doctrine of Relation Back, and whether the gift deed constituted a valid transfer under the applicable laws. The historical context involved customary polygamy, compromise partition decrees between the two wives, and succession flowing from such arrangements. These legal complexities required the Court to interpret the scope and effect of relevant statutes governing adoption, succession, and property transfer within the Hindu personal law framework.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The genesis of the case traces to Bhavakanna Shahapurkar, who had two wives: Parvatibai (Defendant No.1) and Laxmibai. While Laxmibai bore him two children—Parashuram and Renuka—Parvatibai remained childless. After Bhavakanna’s death in 1982, a partition suit OS No. 266/1982 resulted in a compromise decree, whereby Parvatibai was awarded a 9/32 share in specific properties. Subsequently, in 1994, she adopted Mahesh, a 21-year-old male, through a registered adoption deed. Post-adoption, Mahesh began residing with Parvatibai, severing ties with his natural family.

Years later, Parvatibai executed a sale deed in 2007 (regarding Schedule ‘A’ properties) in favor of Defendants 2 and 3 and a gift deed in 2008 (for Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties) in favor of Defendants 4 and 5. Mahesh challenged these transactions in OS No.122/2009, seeking partition and a declaration of the deeds as void. The trial court upheld the sale deed but declared the gift deed invalid, awarding ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties to Mahesh. The High Court overturned the trial court on the gift issue, leading to these civil appeals before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s judgment turned on statutory interpretations and precedents regarding Hindu adoption and succession.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the appellant, being adopted by the widow of the deceased coparcener, is entitled to a share in the suit properties under the Doctrine of Relation Back, and if so, to what extent?

This issue required interpretation of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, particularly Section 12(c), which states that an adopted child cannot divest any person of property already vested in them before adoption. The Court had to decide whether the compromise decree granted absolute title to the adoptive mother, and how this affected the adopted son’s rights.

ii) Whether the execution of the sale deed dated 13.12.2007 by Defendant No.1 in favor of Defendants 2 and 3 was lawful and binding on the adopted son?

The issue revolved around whether Parvatibai, the adoptive mother, was the absolute owner of the property and, if so, whether she had full legal capacity to alienate the property without the adopted son’s consent.

iii) Whether the gift deed dated 27.08.2008 executed in favor of Defendants 4 and 5 was valid in law, considering the lack of acceptance and delivery of possession?

Here, the Court had to determine the validity of the gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates acceptance of the gift during the donor’s lifetime.

iv) Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s well-reasoned finding regarding the invalidity of the gift deed?

This issue concerned the appellate court’s jurisdiction, scope of reappreciation of evidence, and the threshold for overturning a trial court’s factual findings.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The adoption of Mahesh in 1994 by Parvatibai, a widow, triggered the Doctrine of Relation Back, making him a coparcener from the date of Bhavakanna’s death in 1982. Hence, he was entitled to a right in joint family property, including those acquired via the compromise decree.

They relied on Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar, (1974) 2 SCC 156, and Kasabai Tukaram Karvar v. Nivruti, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 918, to argue that an adopted son relates back to the adoptive father’s death and acquires coparcenary rights, unless alienations are lawful.

They argued the sale deed was invalid as the adoptive mother did not consult or take consent from the adopted son. Further, the gift deed was void since no delivery or acceptance of the gifted properties occurred. DW-3 admitted in cross-examination that the gifted properties remained in the possession of the donor until her death, violating the condition under Section 122 of the TPA.

They argued the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s reasoned conclusion and failed to appreciate key oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ext.D6(a) which lacked possession transfer or acceptance records.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondents submitted that:

Parvatibai acquired absolute title over the properties under the compromise decree in OS No.266/1982, and by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she was entitled to deal with them independently.

They cited Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to argue that adoption cannot divest the adoptive mother of her already vested estate. Hence, alienations post-adoption were valid, as the title was vested in her before 1994.

The sale deed of 13.12.2007 was for valuable consideration, properly executed and registered. The adopted son had no role or right in properties absolutely owned by Parvatibai, and no law requires the adopted child’s consent for such sale.

As for the gift deed, they argued it was valid and registered, and the presumption of validity under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act applied. The trial court’s findings were perverse, as it failed to account for Parvatibai’s intention to transfer the property and the presence of natural love and affection.

They contended the High Court rightly reversed the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the registration of the gift as sufficient to imply transfer.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Hindu Succession Act, 1956

  • Section 14(1): Confers absolute ownership on Hindu females over property possessed by them.
  • Section 13: Computation of degrees to determine order of succession.

ii) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

  • Section 12(c): Adopted child cannot divest a person of any estate vested before adoption.
  • Section 16: Registered adoption deed carries presumption of valid adoption.

iii) Transfer of Property Act, 1882

  • Section 122: Defines gift as transfer made voluntarily without consideration, requiring acceptance.

iv) Indian Evidence Act, 1872

  • Section 68: Presumption of valid execution of registered documents unless disproved.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that:

  • The adoption of the appellant Mahesh by the widow, Parvatibai, related back to the date of Bhavakanna’s death in 1982.
  • However, Section 12(c) bars an adopted child from divesting any person of an estate vested prior to adoption.
  • Since Parvatibai acquired absolute ownership by the compromise decree and final decree (Ext.D14) before the 1994 adoption, Mahesh could not challenge alienations she made lawfully thereafter.
  • The sale deed was a valid transfer for consideration, executed by an absolute owner; hence binding on Mahesh.
  • The gift deed, however, failed the legal test of validity. There was no acceptance or delivery, as required under Section 122 TPA. The donees never took possession or even knew about the property location.
  • The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment on the gift deed.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court emphasized that:

“Registration alone is insufficient to validate a gift; acceptance and delivery are equally essential. Mere intention or execution without completion does not create title in law.“

c. GUIDELINES 

  1. Adopted child’s rights relate back to the date of death of the adoptive father.

  2. Lawful alienations by adoptive mother before or after adoption are binding.

  3. Absolute ownership under Section 14(1) includes power to alienate.

  4. For gifts to be valid under Section 122, proof of:

    • Offer
    • Acceptance during donor’s lifetime
    • Delivery of possession
    • Donee’s knowledge is essential.

  5. Registered adoption deed under Section 16 raises presumption of valid adoption, rebuttable only by independent proceedings.

  6. Appellate courts must assign clear and valid reasons when reversing factual findings of trial courts.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision is a critical precedent that harmonizes the Doctrine of Relation Back with the doctrine of absolute ownership under Hindu women’s property law. It clarifies that although adoption may relate back to the date of death of the adoptive father, this cannot unsettle vested rights under Section 12(c). The decision also reinforces the mandatory elements for a valid gift under Indian property law.

Further, the judgment affirms the autonomy of Hindu widows in managing their property post-succession under the Hindu Succession Act. Importantly, it illustrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring valid transfers must reflect genuine possession and acceptance, not mere formality.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

  1. Kasabai Tukaram Karvar v. Nivruti, 2022 INSC 733 : [2022] 5 SCR 899 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 918
  2. Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar, 1974 INSC 43 : [1974] 3 SCR 474 : (1974) 2 SCC 156
  3. Mst. Deu and Ors. v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 701

b. Important Statutes Referred

  1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1)
  2. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Sections 12(c), 16
  3. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 122
  4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture