Supreme Court: Adoption By Widow Would Relate Back To Date Of Husband's Death, gift deed executed by widow will be held null and void

 It is the said finding of the trial Court that was set aside by the High Court in the first appeal with respect to the alienation under the gift deed dated 27.08.2008. A careful scanning of the impugned common judgment of the High Court would reveal that the sound reasoning of the trial Court in regard to this issue was interfered with and set aside without detailed discussion and at the same time without providing any good and sustainable reason therefor. It appears that the High Court was carried away by the fact that the gift deed is a registered one. We have already taken note of the fact that in order to be valid, acceptance of the gift is a pre-requisite. When the very case of one of the donees of the gift viz., the Defendant No. 4 that the property was in the possession of the donor herself till her death itself would reveal that the properties were not delivered and in other words in the legal sense there was no acceptance. The fact that Defendant No. 4 himself depose before the Court that he was not aware of the fact as to in whose possession the gifted properties lie with, would justify the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. True that the First Appellate Court will be having the power to reappreciate the entire evidence and to substitute any finding of the trial Court if it is legally required. At the same time, when once it is found that a sound reasoning given by a trial Court for returning a finding with respect to a definite issue the same cannot be likely interfered without giving appropriate sustainable reasons. The position with respect to the gift deed is discussed in detail by the trial Court and when it arrived at the conclusion that the pre-requisite for making the same valid was absent such a finding could be reversed only if it is found that the said finding was based on perverse precision of evidence. In the case on hand, the discussion as above would reveal that the pre-requisite to constitute a valid gift is lacking and the evidence discussed by the trial Court would support the said finding we do not find any reason for the Appellate Court to interfere with the same. The declaration that gift deed dated 27.08.2008 is null and void is made by the trial Court in the aforesaid circumstances and it is only as a necessary sequel that the trial Court held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to entire 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties as the sole legal heir of deceased Defendant No. 1. As noted hereinbefore, DW-1 herself in her written statement admitted the adoption of the Appellant/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 the sole legal heir of 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 (supra) and Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra).{Para 29}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2025.

Decided On: 02.01.2025

Mahesh Vs. Sangram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

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

 Obviously, in the case on hand, the factum of adoption of the Appellant/the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 after the death of adoptive father, on 16.07.1994 is established by the Appellant/the Plaintiff and it is pertinent to note that the same was admitted by Defendant No. 1 as well, in her written statement. In such circumstances, 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, 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 would be binding on the Appellant/Plaintiff. As held in Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra) in paragraph 11 his right to impeach previous alienations would depend upon the capacity of Defendant No. 1 who made the alienation as well as on the nature of the action of alienation. {Para 22}

23. The first among the alienations under challenge in the case on hand is the one where Defendant No. 1 effected sale of the properties covered by registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 in respect of 'A' Schedule property in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. There is concurrency with respect to the said issue between the trial Court and the High Court. The Courts have held that Defendant No. 1 got absolute right to effect the sale of the property covered thereunder and that the sale was done in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with the law. Admittedly, in regard to the sale, Defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed dated 13.12.2007 and she was not having a case that she had not received sale consideration. By applying the 'Doctrine of Relation Back' and the ratio of decisions in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar's case (supra) and Sripad Gajanan Suthankar's case (supra) it can only be held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is bound by the said alienation. This is because of the cumulative effect of the compromise decree in OS No. 122 of 2009 followed by Ext.D14 and the allotment of share based on the same. In this context it is also relevant to note that the factum of execution of the sale deed is not disputed by the Appellant but his contention is only that Defendant No. 1 could not have sold the property without his consent and knowledge. 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. We have no hesitation to hold that the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the High Court in regard to the said sale deed warrant no interference. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2025.

Decided On: 02.01.2025

Mahesh Vs. Sangram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Print Page

When it is not permissible for court to apply doctrine of relation back while allowing amendment of pleading?

In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 Years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the defendant is right in submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by excluding a period of about 11 years in culcating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed.

Supreme Court of India

Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002

Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar

Citation:(2002)7 SCC 559,AIR 2002 SC 3369.     

Print Page

Importance of Doctrine of relation back in service jurisprudence.

 Doctrine of relation back has been considered to be an

important part of service jurisprudence. The essence of the "doctrine

of relation back" is that though an employee necessarily has to

undergo rigours of litigation, he eventually stands compensated if the

order of punishment is set aside. Entire back wages and benefits

incidental and consequential to reinstatement are then available to

an employee if the subsequent order of punishment in the form of

dismissal or termination is held to be bad in law since it relates back

to the initial date of dismissal. It is, in this situation, that the

"doctrine of relation back" has its operation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.9310 OF 2013

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2010 of 2014

Manohar Pandit Marathe Vs President, Sharda Vidya Prasarak Mandal,

(CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 01/04/2014

Citation;2014(4) MHLJ 556 Bom

Print Page

Whether plaintiff in maintenance suit will get charge on specific immovable property from date of filing of suit?

 The only question then is if it can be deemed to have come into existence on the date when the suit was instituted. If the doctrine of relation back, as applied to the orders of adjudication can also be applied to the decrees passed in suits for maintenance, the appellant's position would be secure. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that a maintenance decree creating a charge on a specific immovable property mentioned in the plaint operates to give a charge to the plaintiff not merely from the date of the decree but from the date on which the plaint was presented : Seetharamanujacharyulu v. Venkatasubbamma (1930) 17 A.I.R. Mad. 824. The proposition settled by this case was not controverted by the learned Counsel for the respondent but it was argued that as the learned Judges were not dealing with a case of supervening insolvency it could not be of any assistance to the appellant. It is true that the contest in that case was between a widow and an auction-purchaser but I cannot see what difference in principle would it make if an Official Receiver is substituted for the auction-purchaser. The question in both the cases would relate to the date on which the charge should be deemed to have come into existence and it was this point which has been settled by that case.

Madras High Court

Katrapati Hanumayamma vs Official Receiver on 10 February, 1939

Equivalent citations: AIR 1940 Mad 749

Coram:

Abdur Rahman, J.

Print Page