Sri Mahesh Vs. Sangram & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos._______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 10558-59 of 2024]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India in Sri Mahesh vs. Sangram & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 10558-59 of 2024] delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, addressing key issues related to Hindu adoption law, succession, and property rights of an adopted child.
Facts of the Case
The dispute arose following the death of Bhavakanna Shahapurkar, whose first wife, Parvatibai, acquired absolute ownership of certain family properties under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Parvatibai adopted Sri Mahesh in 1994, after which Mahesh claimed rights over the coparcenary property of his adoptive father, Bhavakanna. However, Parvatibai had executed a sale deed in 2007 and a gift deed in 2008, alienating some of the properties without Mahesh’s consent. Mahesh filed suit seeking partition and to invalidate these transactions, asserting his rights as an adopted son under the doctrine of relation back.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
Whether the doctrine of relation back applies to an adopted child’s rights over the coparcenary property of the adoptive father.
The extent of the adopted child’s rights over the absolute property of the adoptive mother acquired before adoption.
The validity of alienations made by the adoptive mother post-adoption without the adopted child’s consent.
The legal effect of a registered adoption deed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court held that the doctrine of relation back applies to an adopted child’s rights over the coparcenary property of the adoptive father, meaning the adopted child is deemed to have rights from the date of the father’s death, not merely from the date of adoption. However, this doctrine does not extend to the absolute property of the adoptive mother acquired before adoption, which she holds under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as her absolute property, allowing her to alienate it freely.
The Court also observed that a registered adoption deed is presumed valid under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, unless disproved by independent proceedings. The adoption of Mahesh by Parvatibai was upheld as valid.
Regarding the alienations, the Court declared the gift deed made by Parvatibai after the adoption invalid insofar as it affected Mahesh’s share in the coparcenary property, while upholding her rights over the absolute property acquired prior to adoption.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled that:
Sri Mahesh, as an adopted son, has a coparcenary interest in his adoptive father’s property from the date of the father’s death by virtue of the doctrine of relation back.
Mahesh’s rights do not extend to the absolute property of his adoptive mother acquired before adoption.
Alienations by the adoptive mother affecting Mahesh’s coparcenary share post-adoption are invalid.
The adoption deed is presumed valid unless challenged through proper legal channels.
This judgment clarifies the scope of the doctrine of relation back in Hindu adoption and succession law, balancing the rights of adopted children with the absolute ownership rights of Hindu widows over their property.
RELATED Blog
0 comments