Whether property vested in female heirs will be divested by subsequent adoption of son?

 It is undisputed that late Shri Sharnappa died intestate in the year 1957 leaving behind him his wife Smt. Sharnappa and three daughters namely Smt. Kydigamma, Smt. Nagamma and Smt. Sarojamma. In the instant case, there was no coparcenary, as Late Shri Sharnappa was the sole male member in the family. In the circumstances, upon his death his properties were inherited by his widow and three daughters.

14. At the time when Shri Sharnappa died in 1957, defendant no.1 was not in the picture as he was adopted by Smt. Sharnappa on 9th February, 1971. By virtue of proviso to Section 12 of the Adoption Act, an adopted child cannot divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption. Thus, the property of late Shri Sharnappa which, upon his death in 1957, had vested in his widow and three daughters, would not be disturbed by virtue of subsequent adoption of defendant no.1.

Looking at the aforestated provisions of Section 12 of the Adoption Act, it is crystal clear that the property which had been vested in the widow and three daughters of late Shri Sharnappa Gaded in 1957 would not be disturbed because of adoption of defendant no.1, which had taken place on 9th February, 1971. Thus, Smt. Sharnappa had become absolute owner of 1/4th share and Smt. Nagamma, the mother of the plaintiff had also become an owner of 1/4th share of the property belonging to late Shri Sharnappa Gaded.

Non-reportable

Supreme Court of India

Saheb Reddy vs Sharanappa & Ors on 16 November, 2016

Bench: Anil R. Dave, L. Nageswara Rao

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 901 OF 2014

Citation:(2017) 1 SCC 142

Print Page

Whether court can permit withdrawal of suit at appellate stage which will have effect of divesting of rights under decree?

In the case of R. Rathnivel (supra), this Court has considered
the question as to whether at a stage where the rights of the parties
are crystallized can be divested of the rights under the decree simply
because of withdrawal of the suit at the appellate stage or not. This
Court has held as follows:-
“12. What is essential is that the matter must have been finally
decided so that it becomes conclusive as between the parties to the
suit in respect of the subject-matter of the suit with reference to
which relief is sought. It is at this stage that the rights of the parties
are crystallised and unless the decree is reversed, recalled, modified
or set aside, the parties cannot be divested of their rights under the
decree. Now, the decree can be recalled, reversed or set aside either
by the court which had passed it as in review, or by the appellate or
revisional court. Since withdrawal of suit at the appellate stage, if
allowed, would have the effect of destroying or nullifying the decree
affecting thereby rights of the parties which came to be vested under
the decree, it cannot be allowed as a matter of course but has to be
allowed rarely only when a strong case is made out. It is for this
reason that the proceedings either in appeal or in revision have to be
allowed to have a full trial on merits.”
This Court after referring to the various decisions of the High Courts
have come to the conclusion that where a decree passed by the trial
Court is challenged in appeal, it would not be open to the plaintiff, at
that stage, to withdraw the suit so as to destroy that decree. In para

22, this court held as under:-
“22. In view of the above discussion, it comes out that where a
decree passed by the trial court is challenged in appeal, it would not
be open to the plaintiff, at that stage, to withdraw the suit so as to
destroy that decree. The rights which have come to be vested in the
parties to the suit under the decree cannot be taken away by
withdrawal of the suit at that stage unless very strong reasons are
shown that the withdrawal would not affect or prejudice anybody’s
vested rights. The impugned judgment of the High Court in which a
contrary view has been expressed cannot be sustained.”
15) In Janatha Textiles (supra), this Court has held that it is an
established principle of law that in a third party auction-purchaser’s
interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected
notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside
or otherwise.
16) In Sneh Gupta (supra), this Court has held that a right to
withdraw a suit in the suitor would be unqualified, if no right has
been vested in any other party.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8397 OF 2015

Avenue Supermarts Pvt. Ltd. V Mrs. Nischint Bhalla & Ors. 

Dated:OCTOBER 8, 2015.
Citation: 2015 SCCONLINESC 915,(2016) 15 SCC411

Print Page

Whether widow inheriting property of her deceased husband will be divested of said property after her remarriage?

The fact that in the year 1962 the plaintiff/respondent remarried would not divest her of her rights vested in her by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In support of this proposition the learned advocate for the respondent Shri Sangeet, advocate relied upon the case of Cherotte Sugathan (D) by L.Rs. and others vs Cherotte Bharathi and others [2008 AIR SCW 1525]. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly laid down that widow inheriting property of her husband on his death would become absolute owner and subsequent remarriage would not divest her of property in view of Sections 24 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is also observed that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 overrides provisions of Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856.

Bombay High Court

Baliram Atmaram Dhake vs Rahubai @ Saraswatibai on 7 January, 2009

Bench: P. R. Borkar

Print Page