Know The Law | Supreme Court Explains Doctrine of Relation Back In Hindu Succession & Adoption Laws

Applicable to various branches of civil law, the 'Doctrine of Relation Back' refers to a principle that creates a legal fiction where certain acts or rights are allowed to take effect retroactively from an earlier date than the actual date of occurrence. Because the rights came to be enforceable from an earlier date, thus the doctrine saves the person from the prejudice suffered between the period of enforcement and the actual occurrence of the rights or interest.

The Supreme Court recently, in the case of Sri Mahesh Versus Sangram & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6, explained the applicability of the doctrine of relation back while deciding a case concerning Hindu Succession and Adoption laws. The question was whether an adopted son could assert ownership rights over his adoptive mother's absolute property acquired prior to his adoption.

It is a settled position of law that by virtue of the applicability of the 'doctrine of relation back' if an adoptive mother adopts a child after the death of an adopted father, then the adopted child's coparcenary interest in the joint property is immediately created by the adoption that would relate back to the date of of adoptive father's death, and not from the date of adoption. It means that the life interest of the adoptive child takes effect before the date of adoption and would be entitled to a share in a joint family property as a coparcenary from the date of the adoptive father's death.

Now, the question arose whether absolute ownership created in the property in the adoptive mother's (female Hindu) favour after her husband's (adoptive father) death would entitle an adoptive child to ownership right in her adoptive mother's absolute property.

Answering in negative, the Court explained that if an absolute ownership interest is created in a female Hindu's favour by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”) then by virtue of Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”) an adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested him or her before the adoption.

It means that whatever interest is created in the adoptive mother's favour before the adoption becomes her absolute property, and she can alienate her property even after the adoption as per her wishes. Moreover, the adoptive child cannot challenge the alienation of her absolute property just because the alienation was done after the adoption.

The Court clarified that the application of Section 12(c) of HAMA annuls the adoptive child's claim over the female Hindu's absolute property acquired before the Adoption, and whatever transaction made by the adoptive mother alienating her absolute after the adoption cannot be challenged by the adopted child.

The court relied on precedents such as Kasabai Tukaram Karvar v. Nivruti (2022) and Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar (1974) 2 SCC 156, which established the principle that a widow's child adoption relates back to her husband's death but is subject to limitations on divesting previously vested rights. These precedents affirmed that while adoption gives retroactive rights, it does not affect lawful alienations made by the widow when she had full ownership.

In a nutshell, the doctrine ensures that an adopted child is treated as if born to the deceased adoptive father but cannot retroactively annul lawful actions taken by the adoptive parent.

Case Title: Sri Mahesh Versus Sangram & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10558 of 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Also From Judgment: Sale Deed Executed After Adoption By Mother For Pre-Adoption Property Binding On Adopted Child : Supreme Court

Click here to read the judgment