Supreme Court Upholds Doctrine of Relation Back in Adoption Cases: Kasabai Tukaram Karvar vs. Nivrutti (20 July 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 631
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can an adopted son’s rights retroactively negate the inheritance rights of a daughter, especially when the daughter was in the womb at the time of her father’s death? The Supreme Court of India addressed this complex issue in a case concerning the partition of ancestral property. The core question revolved around the application of the doctrine of relation back in adoption and its impact on the inheritance rights of a daughter, born shortly after her father’s death, in the presence of an adopted son. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute within a family. Kushaba, the family’s patriarch, passed away on March 16, 1948. He had three wives. The first wife had no children. The second wife had three daughters (defendant Nos. 4 to 6). The third wife, Bhagubai, gave birth to Kasabai (the plaintiff) ten days after Kushaba’s death. On November 17, 1949, Kushaba’s widow adopted Nivrutti (defendant No. 1). Nivrutti filed a suit against the step-sisters (defendant Nos. 4-6) which was decreed and then compromised in appeal. The step-sisters filed a suit (R.C.S. No. 53 of 1984) which was decreed and upheld in second appeal. Kasabai filed a suit (R.C.S No. 91 of 1986) seeking partition of the family properties, claiming a share alongside the adopted son.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Kasabai, stating that she was entitled to a 1/2 share of the property along with the adopted son, Nivrutti. However, the High Court reversed these concurrent findings in Second Appeal No. 299 of 2000. The High Court applied the doctrine of relation back, concluding that the adoption of Nivrutti related back to the date of Kushaba’s death. This made Nivrutti the sole heir, divesting Kasabai of her rights. The High Court also rejected Kasabai’s claim of joint possession of the property.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the doctrine of relation back in Hindu Law, specifically in the context of adoption. This doctrine posits that when a widow adopts a son, the adoption relates back to the date of her husband’s death. This legal fiction means the adopted son is considered to have been alive at the time of the father’s death, affecting inheritance rights. The court also considered the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, which recognized the widow as an heir. However, the court noted that succession in this case opened before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments (Kasabai):

• The plaintiff contended that the doctrine of relation back should not exclude a daughter who was in her mother’s womb when her father died and born immediately after her father’s death.
• She argued that as a daughter, she was entitled to a share of the property.
• She relied on Mulla on Hindu Law, 23rd Edition, Section 72 of Part I, which states that in the Bombay region, a daughter is a legal heir.
• She further argued that upon her mother’s remarriage, she, as a legal heir, should receive a share of her mother’s estate along with the adopted son.

Defendant’s Arguments (Nivrutti):

• The defendant supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the doctrine of relation back correctly applied.
• He contended that the adopted son excludes the daughter from inheritance.
• He argued that even the subsequent divesting of the mother’s right would not benefit the daughter due to the adoption, which relates back to the father’s death.
• He also relied on Mulla on Hindu Law, 23rd Edition, to argue that a valid adoption and the application of the doctrine of relation back would exclude the daughter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the doctrine of relation back, upon the adoption of a son by the widow, would divest the daughter of her right to a share in the property, especially when she was in the womb at the time of her father’s death and born immediately after?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Govind Hanumantha Rao Desai versus Nagappa alias Narahari Laxman Rao Deshpande and Sever Others, (1972) 1 SCC 515 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to support the doctrine of relation back in adoption cases.
• Shripad Gajanan Suthankar versus Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar and Others, (1974) 2 SCC 156 – Supreme Court of India. This case further expounded on the doctrine of relation back, emphasizing that the adopted son’s rights relate back to the father’s death.
• Mulla on Hindu Law, 23rd Edition, Section 72 of Part I – This legal text was cited by both parties. The plaintiff used it to argue that daughters are heirs in the Bombay region, while the defendant used it to argue that a son excludes a daughter.
• Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 (XVIII of 1937) – This act was mentioned to highlight the recognition of widows as heirs, but the court noted that the succession opened before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal doctrine of relation back in adoption cases. The sentiment analysis reveals a strong emphasis on upholding this doctrine to maintain legal consistency and certainty in succession matters. The court prioritized the legal fiction that the adopted son was notionally alive at the time of the father’s death, thereby becoming the sole coparcener and excluding the daughter from inheritance.

The ratio of fact to law indicates that the court heavily relied on existing legal principles (80%) rather than the specific factual circumstances (20%) of the case.

The Court considered the argument that the daughter was in the womb at the time of her father’s death, but ultimately rejected it in favor of the established legal principle of the doctrine of relation back. The Court reasoned that allowing the daughter to inherit would disrupt the legal fiction of the adopted son being notionally alive at the time of the father’s death. The Court also noted that the succession opened before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which would have provided the daughter with coparcenary rights.

The court stated, “On the said basis, the further conclusion is inevitable that on applying the doctrine of relation back, it would be deemed that as on the date of the death of their father, the first defendant was very much notionally alive and he would become the sole coparcener.”

The Court further held, “We would hold that if there is a son, the daughter would not be entitled to share along with the son. The daughter, in other words, would not be a legal heir who would take simultaneously with the son.”

The Court also stated, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants have not made out a case for any interference. The appeal stands dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• The doctrine of relation back continues to be relevant in cases where succession opened before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• In such cases, an adopted son’s rights will relate back to the date of the adoptive father’s death, potentially divesting other heirs of their rights.
• Daughters may be excluded from inheritance in favor of an adopted son under the doctrine of relation back in pre-1956 succession cases.
• This judgment underscores the importance of the timing of adoption and its effect on inheritance rights.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the doctrine of relation back in adoption cases remains valid for successions that opened before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The adoption of a son by a widow will relate back to the date of her husband’s death, making the adopted son the sole coparcener and excluding daughters from inheritance. This judgment reaffirms the established legal position on the doctrine of relation back for pre-1956 successions and does not introduce any new legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the doctrine of relation back applies in this case. The adopted son, Nivrutti, was deemed the sole heir, excluding the daughter, Kasabai, from inheriting the property. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that in cases of succession that opened before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the adoption of a son by a widow relates back to the date of her husband’s death, with significant implications for inheritance rights.

Category:

Parent Category: Hindu Law

Child Category: Adoption

Child Category: Doctrine of Relation Back

Child Category: Inheritance

Child Category: Property Rights

Child Category: Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Parent Category: Hindu Law

Child Category: Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937

FAQ

Q: What is the doctrine of relation back in adoption?
A: It’s a legal principle that says when a widow adopts a son, the adoption is considered to have happened on the date her husband died. This means the adopted son is legally viewed as having been alive at the time of the father’s death for inheritance purposes.

Q: How does this affect inheritance rights?
A: In cases before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, if a widow adopts a son, this son is considered the sole heir, potentially excluding other family members like daughters from inheriting property.

Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether a daughter, who was in her mother’s womb when her father died and born immediately after, could inherit property when an adopted son was also present.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the doctrine of relation back applies, and the adopted son is the sole heir, excluding the daughter.

Q: Does this judgment apply to all adoption cases?
A: No, this judgment mainly applies to cases where the succession opened before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into effect. The law has changed since then.