Supreme Court Holds Sale Valid but Restores Trial Court’s Declaration That Gift Is Void; Adoption ‘Relates Back’ but Lawful Alienations Bind Adopted Son

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard appeals by special leave against the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench judgment dated 14.02.2024 in RFA Nos.100168 and 100247 of 2018 arising from OS No.122 of 2009 before the IIIrd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi. The disputes concerned whether an adopted son acquired a right to half the deceased father’s property, and whether two instruments executed by the adoptive mother — a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 and a registered gift deed dated 27.08.2008 — were binding on him.

The Court partly allowed the appeal. It confirmed the concurrent finding of the lower courts that the registered sale deed of 13.12.2007 in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property was valid and the appellant was not entitled to a share therein. It allowed the challenge to the High Court’s reversal of the trial court on the gift deed, quashed the High Court’s order that upheld the gift, and restored the trial court’s decree holding the gift dated 27.08.2008 to be “null and void”, thereby declaring the appellant entitled to the entire ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties as sole heir of the deceased adoptive mother. The Court emphasised settled principles of adoption and succession under the Hindu law, reiterating that an adoption by a widow "relates back" to the date of the husband’s death but that such relation was subject to the binding effect of prior lawful alienations. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "the adoption by defendant No.1, the widow of Bhavakanna Shahpurkar, would relate back to the date of death of the adoptive father which is 04.03.1982 but then all lawful alienations made by defendant No.1 would be binding on the appellant/plaintiff."

Background The dispute arose from properties originally owned by Bhavakanna Shahapurkar. His first wife (defendant No.1/Parvatibai) obtained, by compromise in OS No.266/1982 and consequent final decree (Ext.D14), an allotment of 9/32 share in the schedule properties. The appellant, Sri Mahesh, was adopted by Parvatibai by a registered adoption deed dated 16.07.1994 (Ext.P1); adoption was admitted by the adoptive mother in pleadings and proved at trial. The appellant sued for partition and separate possession and sought to set aside the sale deed (13.12.2007) in favour of respondent Nos.1–2 and the gift deed (27.08.2008) in favour of respondent Nos.3–4.

At trial the court partly decreed the suit: it upheld the sale deed but declared the gift deed null and void, awarding the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties to the appellant as sole heir. The Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal by the donees under the gift and set aside the trial court’s decree, dismissing the suit. On appeal to this Court the primary issues were the effect of Sections 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and application of the doctrine of “relation back” as explained in Shripad Gajanan Suthankar and later cases. The judgment quoted Section 12(c): "the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption," and analysed the interaction of that provision with the relation-back principle and the nature of alienations.

The Supreme Court held that while adoption by a widow related back to the death of the husband, the adopted son remained bound by lawful alienations effected by the adoptive mother. The sale of 13.12.2007 was a lawful alienation and binding; concurrent findings on that score required no interference. As to the gift of 27.08.2008, the trial court’s detailed fact-finding — that there was no delivery or acceptance of the gifted properties, that donees themselves admitted non-possession and lack of knowledge of occupancy, and that the recitals were inconsistent with evidence — warranted restoration. The High Court had not sufficiently dealt with or disturbed the trial court’s reasoned conclusions. Consequently the trial court’s declaration that the gift was void and its award of the ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties to the appellant were restored. The interlocutory injunction application was rendered infructuous. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 14 (SLP (C) Nos. 10558-59 of 2024) Case Title: Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the reported judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the reported judgment