The Supreme Court has ruled that an adopted child cannot challenge transactions made by a Hindu widow prior to adoption. The decision in Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. (SLP (C) Nos. 10558-59 of 2024) upheld a widow’s absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The court, led by Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, upheld the validity of a 2007 sale deed executed by the widow but invalidated a 2008 gift deed due to lack of possession delivery. “An adopted child shall not divest any person of an estate vested in them before the adoption,” the bench observed.
Case Background
The case originated from a property dispute following the death of Bhavakanna Shahapurkar in 1982. His properties were divided between his two wives, Parvatibai and Laxmibai, under a compromise decree. Parvatibai later adopted the appellant, Sri Mahesh, in 1994. Subsequently, Parvatibai sold a portion of the properties (Schedule A) in 2007 and gifted others (Schedules B and C) in 2008.
Mahesh filed a suit challenging the sale and gift deeds, claiming inheritance rights as the adopted son. While the trial court partly upheld his claims, the Karnataka High Court reversed the decision, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.
Key Issues
- Scope of Adoption Rights: Whether an adopted child can challenge transactions made by the adoptive parent before adoption.
- Impact of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Whether properties inherited or acquired by a widow are her absolute property, permitting alienations without restrictions.
- Validity of Alienations: Whether the sale and gift deeds executed by Parvatibai were lawful and binding on Mahesh as the adopted son.
- Doctrine of Relation Back: The applicability of this doctrine, which creates retrospective inheritance rights for an adopted child.
Court’s Observations
The court highlighted the legal nuances governing adoption and property rights under Hindu law:
- On Adoption and Property Rights: Citing Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the court emphasized that an adopted child cannot divest vested rights. Justice Ravikumar noted, “An adopted child shall not divest any person of an estate vested in them before the adoption.”
- On Widow’s Ownership: The court upheld that Parvatibai’s absolute ownership of the properties under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act granted her full rights to alienate the properties, independent of her adopting Mahesh later.
- On Validity of Transactions:
- Sale Deed (Schedule A): The sale was found valid and binding on Mahesh, as it was executed lawfully and for consideration.
- Gift Deed (Schedules B and C): The court reinstated the trial court’s declaration that the gift deed was invalid due to lack of possession delivery and acceptance, essential prerequisites for a valid gift under the Transfer of Property Act.
Judgment
The Supreme Court issued a split ruling:
- Sale Deed (Schedule A): The court upheld the sale deed, confirming Parvatibai’s absolute ownership and competence to alienate the property.
- Gift Deed (Schedules B and C): The gift deed was declared null and void, and Mahesh was declared the rightful heir to these properties.
