Adoption Rights and Property Transfers: Supreme Court Partially Reverses High Court Decision (2 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 2 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 14
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a complex case involving property rights and the effect of adoption under Hindu law. The core issue revolved around whether an adopted son could challenge property transfers made by his adoptive mother after his adoption. This judgment clarifies the interplay between adoption, property rights, and the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, with Justice C.T. Ravikumar authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute over properties initially owned by Bhavakanna Shahapurkar. He had two wives, Parvatibai (defendant No. 1) and Laxmibai. Parvatibai and Bhavakanna had no children. Bhavakanna had two children, Parashuram and Renuka, with Laxmibai. Bhavakanna died on 4 March 1982. Parvatibai filed a suit (OS No. 266/1982) against Laxmibai and her children for partition of the properties. A compromise decree was passed, and Parvatibai received a 9/32 share of the properties.

On 16 July 1994, Parvatibai adopted Sri Mahesh (the appellant/plaintiff). At the time of adoption, Sri Mahesh was 21 years old. He then started living with Parvatibai. Sri Mahesh claimed that, as the adopted son, he became a legal heir of Bhavakanna and was entitled to a half share in the properties. He challenged a sale deed dated 13 December 2007, executed by Parvatibai in favor of defendants 2 and 3, and a gift deed dated 27 August 2008, in favor of defendants 4 and 5. He argued that Parvatibai did not have the right to transfer property without his consent. He filed OS No. 122 of 2009, seeking partition and to declare the sale and gift deeds void.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court partly decreed the suit, declaring the gift deed void but upholding the sale deed. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the suit. The High Court held that Parvatibai was the absolute owner of the property and had the right to transfer the property. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section states that any property possessed by a female Hindu is held by her as a full owner, not as a limited owner. The explanation to this sub-section defines “property” to include movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu through various means.
• Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section specifies that an adopted child does not divest any person of any estate that vested in them before the adoption.
• Section 13 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section deals with the computation of degrees of relationship for determining the order of succession among agnates or cognates.
• Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section states that if a registered adoption deed is produced, the court presumes that the adoption was made in compliance with the law unless disproved.
• Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section defines a gift as the transfer of existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, and accepted by the donee.

The Court also considered the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’, which states that an adoption by a widow relates back to the date of her husband’s death.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that upon adoption, he became a legal heir of Bhavakanna and was entitled to a half share in the suit properties.
• He contended that Parvatibai could not sell or gift the properties without his consent.
• He challenged the sale deed of 13 December 2007 and the gift deed of 27 August 2008.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that Parvatibai became the absolute owner of the properties after her husband’s death.
• They contended that the adoption of the appellant did not divest her of her ownership.
• They relied on the compromise decree in OS No. 266 of 1982 to support Parvatibai’s absolute ownership.
• They argued that the sale deed and gift deed were valid.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant innovatively used the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ to argue that his adoption should relate back to the death of his adoptive father, thus giving him a claim to the property. The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the absolute ownership of Parvatibai, which was acquired by the compromise decree.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to a half share in the suit schedule property.
2. Whether the sale deed executed on 13/12/2007 is binding on the appellant.
3. Whether Parvatibai was competent to sell the suit schedule property to defendants 2 and 3.
4. Whether the gift deed executed by Parvatibai in favor of defendants 4 and 5 is valid and binding on the plaintiff.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Mst. Deu and Ors. v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. [1998] 8 SCC 701* to establish the presumption of valid adoption from a registered adoption deed.
• The Court relied on Kasabai Tukaram Karvar and Others v. Nivruti (Dead) Through Legal Heirs and Others 2022 SCC Online 918; 2022 INSC 733* and Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar [1974] 2 SCC 156; 1974 INSC 43* to explain the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ and its limitations on alienations made before adoption.
• The Court interpreted Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956* to clarify the nature of ownership of a female Hindu over her property.
• Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956* was used to clarify that an adopted child does not divest any person of any estate that vested in them before the adoption.
• The Court applied Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882* to determine the requirements of a valid gift, emphasizing the necessity of acceptance by the donee.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Validity of Adoption: The Court acknowledged the validity of the adoption based on the registered adoption deed and the admission of the adoptive mother.
• Doctrine of Relation Back: The Court applied the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back,’ which meant the adoption related back to the death of the adoptive father, but it also considered the limitations of this doctrine.
• Nature of Alienations: The Court distinguished between the sale deed and the gift deed. The sale deed was upheld as it was a valid transaction where Parvatibai had received consideration. The gift deed was declared void due to lack of acceptance and delivery of possession.
• Lack of Acceptance of Gift: The Court emphasized that for a gift to be valid, there must be acceptance by the donee. The lack of delivery of possession and the donees’ ignorance of the property’s possession indicated a lack of acceptance.
• Factual Inconsistencies: The Court noted inconsistencies in the gift deed, such as the false claim that the donees were the donor’s grandchildren through her daughter.

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual considerations and legal principles. The factual aspects, such as the lack of delivery of possession and the donees’ ignorance of the property, weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision to invalidate the gift deed. The legal aspects, such as the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ and the requirements for a valid gift, provided the framework for the decision.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The High Court had focused on the fact that the gift deed was registered, but the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of acceptance and delivery of possession for a valid gift. The Court also rejected the argument that Parvatibai’s absolute ownership meant she could gift the property without considering the adoption.

The Supreme Court held that while the adoption of the appellant related back to the death of his adoptive father, it did not invalidate the sale deed executed by Parvatibai. However, the gift deed was declared void because the donees did not take possession of the property and were not even aware of who was in possession of the property.

The Court stated: “the rights of an adopted son spring into existence only from the moment of the adoption and all alienations made by the widow before the adoption, if they are made for legal necessity or otherwise lawfully, such as with the consent of the next reversioners, are binding on the adopted son.”

The Court also noted, “A perusal of Section 122 of the TP Act would make it clear about the pre-requisites of a valid gift. Going by the same, two things are necessary to constitute a valid gift, namely, (i) an offer and, (ii) its acceptance.”

Further, the Court observed, “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The decision was unanimous.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combined application of the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’, the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court carefully considered the facts of the case and applied the relevant laws to reach a just conclusion.

This decision clarifies that while an adopted son’s rights relate back to the death of his adoptive father, it does not invalidate prior lawful alienations made by the adoptive mother. However, the decision also highlights the importance of acceptance and delivery of possession for a valid gift. This may have implications for future cases involving property transfers and adoption.

Key Takeaways

• Adoption relates back to the death of the adoptive father, but it does not automatically invalidate prior lawful alienations.
• A valid gift requires both an offer and acceptance, including delivery of possession.
• Registered deeds do not automatically validate transactions if essential legal requirements are not met.
• Courts will look at the substance of the transaction, not just the form.

This judgment will likely impact future cases involving property transfers by adoptive parents and the rights of adopted children. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal requirements for valid property transactions.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while adoption relates back to the death of the adoptive father, it does not invalidate prior lawful alienations made by the adoptive mother. This case clarifies the importance of acceptance and delivery of possession for a valid gift. The Supreme Court upheld the principles laid down in previous cases like Kasabai Tukaram Karvar and Others v. Nivruti (Dead) Through Legal Heirs and Others 2022 SCC Online 918; 2022 INSC 733* and Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar [1974] 2 SCC 156; 1974 INSC 43*.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the validity of the sale deed but declaring the gift deed void. The Court emphasized the importance of acceptance and delivery of possession for a valid gift, and it upheld the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ with its limitations. This decision provides clarity on the interplay between adoption, property rights, and the validity of property transfers.