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

The Supreme Court today (Jan. 2) observed that although a widow female Hindu's adopted child's rights relate to the date of the adoptive father's death, it would not divest the rights acquired by a female Hindu before an adoption.

In other words, the court stated that any transaction made by the adoptive mother regarding the suit property acquired by her prior to the adoption would remain binding on the adopted child after the adoption.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that the property acquired by a female Hindu before the child's adoption remains her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”), and therefore as per Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”) the child's adoption would not divest her of the rights acquired by her before adoption.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision validating the sale deed executed by the Appellant's adoptive mother in favor of other defendants after the Appellant's adoption.

Briefly put, the Appellant's adoptive mother acquired rights in the suit property before his adoption. The Appellant was adopted in 1994, however claimed that his right in the suit property would relate to the date of the adoptive father's death i.e., 1982 due to the application of the 'doctrine of relation back'. Thus, he argued that the sale deed executed by his adoptive mother after his adoption was invalid because his consent was not taken before the sale deed execution.

Affirming the High Court's decision validating the execution of the sale deed, the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar observed that the Appellant cannot dispute her adoptive mother's right over the suit property acquired by her before his adoption.

Although the court recognized the Appellant's right to inherit property from the date of his adoptive father's death, by virtue of Section 12(c) of HAMA, the Court clarified that an adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested him or her before the adoption.

In this regard, the Court referred to the case of Kasabai Tukaram Karvar and Others v. Nivruti (Dead) Through Legal Heirs and Others (2022), where the Court cited the case of Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar (1974) where the Court held that “it is settled law that the rights of an adopted son spring into existence only from the moment of the adoption and all alienations made by the widow before the adoption, if they are made for legal necessity or otherwise lawfully, such as with the consent of the next reversioners, are binding on the adopted son.”

“in view of the 'Doctrine of Relation Back' and by applying the law laid down in Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra) relied on with agreement in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar's case (supra) the adoption by defendant No.1 (adoptive mother), 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 (adoptive mother) would be binding on the appellant/plaintiff.”, the court observed.

“Though the alienation was subsequent to his adoption by virtue of the fact that defendant No.1 got absolute right and title in regard to the property covered by the said sale deed dated 13.12.2007 and that a valid sale was effected following the procedures, the challenge of the appellant against the said alienation of property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is not liable to be interfered with.”, the court added.

“The concurrent finding of the courts below that the sale deed dated 13.12.2007 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is valid and that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any share in 'A' schedule property is confirmed and consequently the appeal against the judgment in RFA SLP (C) No.100247 of 2018, viz., SLP (C) No.10558 of 2024 is dismissed.”, the Court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Pratap, AOR Mr. Mahadev Ganpat Patil, Adv. Mr. Shubham Rajhans, Adv.

For Respondent(s) M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Garg, Adv. Ms. G. Anusha, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Click here to read/download the judgment