Supreme Court settles inheritance rights of sons born before adoption: Kalindi vs. Manohar (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 7th February 2020

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a son born before his father’s adoption claim a share in his father’s adoptive family’s property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question of inheritance rights. This judgment clarifies the position of sons born before their father’s adoption in the context of succession laws. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

Laxman was adopted by Saraswati on November 2, 1935. Prior to his adoption, Laxman had three sons: Gangadhar (aged 4 years 5 months), Dattatraya (aged 2 years 5 months), and Manohar (aged 9 months). After the adoption, Laxman, his wife Padmavati, and their three sons joined Saraswati’s family. In 1938, Laxman and Padmavati had a daughter named Kalindi. In 1948, Laxman’s natural father, Pandurang, partitioned his joint family property, excluding Laxman since he had been adopted by Saraswati.

Laxman passed away on January 10, 1987. Saraswati had predeceased him. After Saraswati’s death, Laxman inherited her property. Following Laxman’s death, his daughter Kalindi sought to have her and her mother, Padmavati’s names included in the village revenue records as owners. This mutation was recorded on March 11, 1987. Manohar, Laxman’s son, filed a revision which was dismissed on September 8, 1992. Manohar then filed a writ petition.

Padmavati, Laxman’s wife, died on October 10, 1992. She had made a registered will on May 21, 1987, bequeathing her share to her three sons born before Laxman’s adoption. Gangadhar, one of the sons, died on October 20, 1996. Dattatraya, the second son, then filed a suit for partition, separate possession, and mesne profits against Kalindi, who had taken forcible possession. This suit was decided in favor of Dattatraya on November 13, 2004. The central dispute revolved around whether Laxman’s three sons, born before his adoption in 1935, were entitled to inherit property in Laxman’s adoptive family after his death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The matter was initially taken up by the Revenue Authorities, where the names of Laxman’s sons were excluded from the revenue records. The revision filed by Manohar, one of Laxman’s sons, was dismissed. Subsequently, Manohar filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court, in its order dated December 11, 2006, decided the writ petition against the exclusion of the names of the sons of Laxman. The High Court held that the sons born to Laxman before his adoption were entitled to his estate along with the daughter born after his adoption. The first appeal filed by the natural daughter of Laxman was also dismissed. The matter reached the Supreme Court of India as a Civil Appeal.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Specifically, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which outlines the general rules of succession for male Hindus, is central to the dispute. The Act also defines key terms such as ‘agnate’, ‘full blood’, ‘heir’ and ‘related’ in Section 3. The Supreme Court also considered Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gives the Act an overriding effect over any prior Hindu law, custom, or usage.

The relevant provisions are:

• Section 3(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: “agnate”—one person is said to be an “agnate” of another if the two are related by blood or adoption wholly through males;
• Section 3(e) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: “full blood”, “half blood” and “uterine blood”—(i) two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife, and by half blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but; by different wives; (ii) two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood when they are descended from a common ancestress but by different husbands;
• Section 3(f) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: “heir” means any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under this Act;
• Section 3(j) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: “related” means related by legitimate kinship: Provided that illegitimate children shall be deemed to be related to their mothers and to one another, and their legitimate descendants shall be deemed to be related to them and to one another; and any word expressing relationship or denoting a relative shall be construed accordingly.
• Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: “Overriding effect of Act. – Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,—(a) any text rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;. (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.”
• Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: “General rules of succession in the case of males.—The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter—(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) xxxxx”

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was enacted to codify and reform Hindu law relating to intestate succession. It aimed to establish a uniform system of inheritance, overriding previous interpretations and customs. The Act’s provisions are designed to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of property among legal heirs, irrespective of whether they were born before or after adoption.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Kalindi’s) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that while the wife of an adoptee passes into the adoptive family with her husband, the sons born before adoption do not. They remain members of their father’s natural family.
• It was contended that the codified Hindu Law does not explicitly state that children born to an adoptee before adoption can inherit property in the adoptive family.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in Kalgavda Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tamangavda Patil & Anr. [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 669], arguing that children born before adoption do not pass into the adoptive family and thus are not entitled to a share in the adoptive family’s estate.
• The appellant emphasized that rights of property once vested cannot be taken away except in the modes prescribed by Hindu Law.

Respondent’s (Manohar and Others) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which came into force after the adoption, does not discriminate between sons born before or after adoption.
• They contended that the Act overrides any prior interpretations of Hindu law, and therefore, the sons born before adoption are entitled to inherit their father’s property.
• The respondents highlighted that the Act recognizes the blood relationship between a father and his children, irrespective of adoption.
• They cited the definitions of ‘agnate’ and ‘full blood’ in the Act to support their claim that the sons and daughter of Laxman are related by full blood and are all class I heirs.

Innovativeness of the Arguments: The appellant’s argument was rooted in traditional interpretations of Hindu law, emphasizing that adoption creates a break in the family line for the adoptee. The respondent’s argument, however, was innovative in its reliance on the overriding effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which introduced a new legal framework and aimed to establish a uniform system of inheritance, irrespective of prior customs and interpretations.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the sons of Laxman, born before his adoption, are entitled to inherit the property in the adoptive family of Laxman after his death?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 3(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Defines “agnate” as a person related by blood or adoption wholly through males.
• Section 3(e) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Defines “full blood” as persons descended from a common ancestor by the same wife.
• Section 3(f) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Defines “heir” as any person entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate.
• Section 3(j) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Defines “related” as related by legitimate kinship.
• Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Provides the Act with overriding effect over prior Hindu law.
• Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Specifies the general rules of succession for male Hindus.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kalgavda Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tamangavda Patil [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 669]*: The Court held that this case was based on pre-codified Hindu law and was not applicable after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• Martand Jiwajee Patil & Anr. v. Narayan Krishna Gumast-Patil & Anr. [AIR 1939 Bom 305]*: The Court acknowledged the recognition of the father-son relationship even after adoption but noted it was in the context of the right of an adoptee to give his son in adoption.
• Raghuraj Chandra v. Subhadra Kunwar [(1928) L.R. 55 I.A. 139]*: The Court used this case to highlight that adoption is not a complete “new birth” for all purposes.
• Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo [(1981) 4 SCC 613]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the overriding effect of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• Bhanwar Singh v. Puran & Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 87]*: This case was used to support the principle that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies on the date succession opens.
• Dundyappa Laxman Karol v. Neelavva Chandrappa Jarali [Second Appeal No. 556 of 1964]*: This case was used to discuss the manner of inheritance under the Act in cases of adoption of married persons before the enactment of the Act.
• Tewari Raghuraj Chandra & Ors. v. Rani Subhadra Kunwar & Ors. [AIR 1928 PC 87]*: The Court noted that this case did not provide any guidance on whether legitimate children born prior to adoption would cease to be included in the category of her children.
• Kausalyabai W/o Jagdeorao v. Devkabai W/o Jaiwantrao Deshmukh [(1978) 16 Mh.L.J. 357]*: The Court cited this case to examine the right of a daughter born to an adoptee before his adoption.
• Smt. Neelawwa v. Smt. Shivawwa [AIR 1989 Karnataka 45]*: This case was used to support the view that the blood relationship between a father and his children is not severed by adoption.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the overriding effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court emphasized that the Act does not distinguish between sons born before or after adoption, and it aimed to establish a uniform system of inheritance. The Court also highlighted the continuity of the blood relationship between a father and his children, irrespective of adoption. The following points were weighed in the mind of the Court:

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, overrides all prior interpretations of Hindu law.
• The Act does not make any distinction between sons born before or after adoption.
• The blood relationship between a father and his children continues even after adoption.
• The definitions of ‘agnate’ and ‘full blood’ in the Act support the claim of the sons as class I heirs.
• The Act applies on the date succession opens, which in this case was after the enactment of the Act.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%), particularly the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while factual considerations (30%) such as the blood relationship and the timing of adoption were also taken into account. The Court’s emphasis on the Act’s overriding effect and the lack of any distinction between sons born before or after adoption were the most significant factors in its decision.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, stating that the sons of Laxman, born before his adoption, are entitled to inherit the property of their father. The Court reasoned that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not make any distinction between sons born before or after adoption. The Court emphasized that the Act overrides all prior interpretations of Hindu law and that the blood relationship between a father and his children continues even after adoption. The Court stated:

“Since there is no provision of denying the rights of succession to the natural born son of an adoptee father, therefore, the succession will be in terms of the provisions of the Act alone.”

The Court also observed:

“All the children of Laxman are entitled to inherit the property of their natural father and mother in accordance with the provisions of the Act as succession has opened after the death of Laxman in 1987 and subsequently the mother in the year 1992.”

The Court further noted:

“The mere fact that the father has gone into another family by adoption and eased to be of his son’s gotra or family cannot unmake what he naturally is—the son’s father.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is the governing law for inheritance matters among Hindus, overriding prior interpretations and customs.
• Sons born to a Hindu man before his adoption are entitled to inherit his property in his adoptive family, just like sons born after adoption.
• The blood relationship between a father and his children is not severed by adoption for the purposes of inheritance.
• The Act applies on the date succession opens, meaning that post-enactment laws govern inheritance even if the adoption occurred before the Act.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in Hindu inheritance law and ensures that sons born before adoption are not discriminated against. It reinforces the principle of equal inheritance rights for all children of a Hindu male, irrespective of when they were born relative to his adoption. This decision will likely impact future cases involving similar disputes and provide guidance for lower courts.

Directions

There were no specific directions given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not distinguish between sons born before or after adoption for the purposes of inheritance. The Act overrides prior interpretations of Hindu law and ensures that all children have equal inheritance rights. This judgment clarifies that the blood relationship between a father and his children continues even after adoption, and the Act applies on the date succession opens.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment marks a significant shift from previous interpretations of Hindu law, particularly those based on pre-codified texts and customs. It explicitly rejects the view that sons born before adoption do not pass into the adoptive family for inheritance purposes. The Court’s reliance on the overriding effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, establishes a new position of law that prioritizes equality and the continuation of blood relations in inheritance matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalindi Damodar Garde (D) By Lrs. vs Manohar Laxman Kulkarni (D) By Lrs. & Ors. settles the legal position regarding the inheritance rights of sons born before their father’s adoption. The Court held that such sons are entitled to inherit the property of their father in his adoptive family, aligning with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This decision underscores the Act’s overriding effect and ensures that all sons have equal inheritance rights, irrespective of the timing of their birth relative to their father’s adoption. The judgment clarifies a previously ambiguous area of law and provides a clear direction for future cases.