Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors.

Author: Rakhi Jain, S And S Law College, DAVV.

Court – Supreme Court of India

Year – 2025

Citation – 2025 INSC 14

Bench of judges – Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Date of judgement – 02/01/2025

Introduction

In a significant property dispute named Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. arising from an adoption and property alienation by the adoptive mother, the Supreme Court upheld the sale of property by an adoptive mother before the adoption, and voids gift deeds for lack of valid acceptance and delivery. This judgement clarifies the interrelation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, “Doctrine of Relation Back” and the principles of law governing valid gifts.

Background of the case

In this case Bhavakanna Shahapurkar, the property owner, had two wives. After the death of Bhavakanna Shahapurkar his first wife, Parvatibai acquired a 9/32 share in the properties through a compromise decree in a partition suit. After she adopted a son named Sri Mahesh who is the appellant of the suit. However, before his adoption, Parvatibai sold some portion of her property and some portion of her property she gifted to others. This suit was filed in Trial Court first, after that in High Court and then in Supreme Court.

Trial Court’s decision

The Trial court confirmed the sale of property on the grounds that Parvatibai has absolute ownership of the property and she can sell the property to anyone she wanted to, so the sale of that property was valid. But the court declared the gift of property as null and void by observing that there was not any valid acceptance of the gift as the property was never delivered to anyone. The parties were not satisfied with the judgement of the court, so they applied the petition in the High Court.

High Court’s decision

The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court said that Parvatibai had absolute right on the property so that she could give the property to anyone she wanted to, so the gift was valid. The High Court dismissed the claim of Sri Mahesh to the property. Then the appeal was made in the Supreme Court.

Facts of the case

Bhavakanna Shahpurkar was the original owner of the suit schedule properties and original defendant Smt. Parvatibai was his legally wedded wife. They don’t have any issues in their married life. With the consent of his wife Parvatibai Bhavakanna married Laxmibai without dissolving his first marriage with Parvatibai. In this marriage Bhavakanna got two children namely, Parashuram and Renuka. On 04.03.1982, Bhavakanna Shahapurkar died leaving behind two widows. After his demise, OS No. 266/1982 was filed by Parvatibai against Laxmibai, and her children for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. Based on a compromise, a decree was drawn in the suit and later, in the final decree proceedings defendant No.1 Parvatibai was allotted and thereby acquired 9/32 share in schedule ‘A’ and ‘D’ properties. The appellant herein was adopted by Parvatibai on 16.07.1994. At the time of his adoption the appellant was aged 21 years. The case of the appellant in OS No. 122 of 2009 is that on being adopted he became the legal heir of Bhavakanna and, therefore, entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties. According to him, his adoptive mother did not have the absolute right to sell the properties and give the property to anyone. The Trial Court stated that the sale of property by Parvati was valid but the gift of property by Parvatibai is null and void. The High Court stated that the gift of property and sale by Parvatibai is valid. Then this suit was filed in the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

Based on rival pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues –

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule property?
Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed executed on 13/12/2007 is not at all binding upon the plaintiff?
Whether the defendant No.1 was competent to sell the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 and 3?
What other relief is the plaintiff entitled to?
What order or decree?

Additional Issues dtd: 10/02/12

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the only legal representative of the deceased defendant No. 1?

Additional issues dtd: 20/10/2017

Whether the defendant No. 6 proves that the plaintiff got executed an adoption deed dtd: 19/07/1994 fraudulent, by force by taking undue advantage of the old age of defendant No. 1?

Judgement

As noted hereinbefore, DW1 herself in her written statement admitted the adoption of the plaintiff as her son and the registered adoption deed could fortify the same. When that be so the finding that the appellant is entitled to the said properties being sole legal heir of the deceased defendant No. 1 cannot be said to be faulty as it is the inevitable consequence of application for the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ and the ratio of the decisions in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar’s case and Sripad Gajanan Suthankar’s case. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The concurrent finding of the courts below that the sale deed dated 13/12/2007 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is valid and that the appellant is not entitled to any share in ‘A’ schedule property is confirmed and consequently the appeal against the judgement in RFA No. 100247 of 2018, viz., SLP (C) No. 10558 of 2024 is dismissed.

The Supreme Court upheld the sale of property by Parvatibai before the adoption is completely valid but the gift of property by Parvatibai is null and void.

Analysis

The Supreme Court observed some key points like ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’, absolute ownership and alienation etc.

Doctrine of Relation Back: The Apex Court emphasized that an adopted son's right relates back to the date of the adoptive father’s death. But this principle does not void the lawful alienation made by the widow before the adoption. So Parvatibai has the absolute right to sell the property to anyone. This principle does not void the sale of property.

Absolute Ownership and Alienation: The Court confirms that a female Hindu holds absolute ownership of her property under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956.

Valid Gift: The Court clarified that under Transfer of Property Act,1982 essential elements of a valid gift emphasized the necessity of an offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The court held that the gift of property by an adoptive mother before the adoption is null and void because of the absence of these elements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has ruled that an adoptive child can’t challenge a transaction of anything even if it is a property or money made by a Hindu widow before adoption. In this judgement the Supreme Court upheld the transaction of property by a Hindu widow named Parvatibai before the adoption of Sri Mahesh under Hindu Succession Act,1956. But the Supreme Court declared the gift of property by an adoptive mother before the adoption is null and void.