Supreme Court Judgment on Sri Mahesh Vs. Sangram & Ors.

Background of The Case

This case of Sri Mahesh vs. Sangram & Ors. pertains to a partition dispute of certain properties after the death of Bhavakanna Shahapurkar. The appellant, Sri Mahesh, was an adopted son by his first wife, Smt. Parvatibai. He filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties and sought to establish his right to a share as a legal heir of Bhavakanna.

The bone of contention was whether, as an adopted son, Mahesh had a right to take the state in Bhavakanna’s property given that the wife, defendant No. 1, had executed a ‘sale deed’ and ‘gift deed’ giving away some properties without his consent and as such, those transactions were void.

Bhavakanna had two marriages: first with Parvatibai and the second with Laxmibai, the latter having two children, Parashuram and Renuka. After Bhavakanna’s demise in 1982, Parvatibai filed for a partition and, through compromise, was allotted a share of the properties. Mahesh was adopted by Parvatibai in 1994, and he relinquished all rights he had in his biological family. He was 21 years old at the time of his adoption.

Mahesh’s case was that, having been adopted, he became the legal heir of Bhavakanna and would be entitled to half of the properties. He questioned the sale deed executed by Parvatibai in 2007 and the gift deed dated 2008 on the basis that they were made without his consent and were thus void.      

What’s More in the Background of the Case?

The defendants, including Parvatibai and others who were given property via the sale and gift deeds, argued that Parvatibai had absolute ownership over the properties, and Mahesh, though an adopted child, had no right to any kind of share from the property since the act of adoption did not affect Mrs. Parvatibai’s ownership.  

In that suit, Mahesh sought to annul the sale deed and gift deed, while they contended that actions taken by Parvatibai were rightly done. The case went through several legal stages, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the earlier judgment, leading to Mahesh appealing to the Supreme Court.   

The main question was whether Mahesh could claim a legal right to a share in his adoptive father’s property or whether Parvatibai had full control over the estate, the property of her husband, after his death. In this appeal, the Supreme Court had to decide the validity of the adoption, the question of ownership of properties, and whether Parvatibai’s transactions without Mahesh’s consent were justified.  

Issues in Case of Sri Mahesh Vs. Sangram & Ors.

Have a look at the issues in the case of Sri Mahesh Vs. Sangram & Ors.-

• Does Mahesh, the plaintiff, have an interest in half of the suit property?
• Is the deed of sale in any way invalid for the plaintiff?
• Could defendant No. 1 sell the properties to defendants 2 and 3?
• What further relief or compensation is the plaintiff entitled to?
• And what is the final judgment given on this matter?

Additional Issues of 10th February 2012

• Is the plaintiff the only legal heir of the deceased defendant No. 1?

Additional Issues of 20th October 2012

• Is the plaintiff the only legal heir of the deceased defendant No. 1?
• Did defendants 4 and 5 prove that they were the only legal heirs of defendant No. 1?
• Did defendants 4 and 5 prove that they became the absolute owners of certain properties by the gift deed from defendant No. 1 and that this gift deed is valid, and therefore, the plaintiff has no rights over these properties?

Additional Issues of 29th July 2017

• Does defendant No. 6 prove that the adoption deed was blackened when the plaintiff in 1994 signed it?
• Did defendants Nos. 2 and 3 prove that the sale deed for “A” scheduled property by defendant No. 1 was executed under undue influence or pressure?

Trial Court’s Decision

On 31^st March 2018, the trial court ruled that:  

• The gift deed of defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants 4 and 5 is not valid.
• The plaintiff acquires properties under the “B” and “C” schedules.
• The claim made about “A” schedule property by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 was upheld.

Consideration Points of the High Court

• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to half of the properties arrayed in the suit?
• Whether the plaintiff prove that defendant No. 1 was not in a position to sell the “A” schedule property to defendants 2 and 3?
• Whether the plaintiff proves that the gift deed for the “B” and “C” schedule properties executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants 4 and 5 is void?
• Whether the plaintiff has proved that the finding of the trial court for the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants 2 and 3 was erroneous?
• Have defendants Nos. 4 and 5 proved that the declaration of the gift deed by defendant No. 1 as invalid is wrong?
• What order or decree should be passed in this case?

High Court Decision in Case of Sri Mahesh Vs. Sangram & Ors.

On 14th February 2024:

• The High Court set aside the trial court’s decision on the gift deed, declaring Parvatibai as the sole owner of the properties.
• The gift deed in favor of defendants 4 and 5 was upheld as valid.
• Mahesh’s claim on the “A” schedule property was rejected.
• The sale deed in favor of defendants 2 and 3 was upheld.
• The trial court’s judgment was vacated, and Mahesh’s case (OS No. 122/2009) was dismissed.
• Mahesh’s motion for a temporary injunction was rejected.
• These circumstances prompted Mahesh to file the present appeals.

Supreme Court Observations

Have a look at the Supreme Court observations-

Property Rights of Female Hindu (Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956)

• Property possessed by a female Hindu becomes her absolute property.
• She holds it as a full owner, not a limited owner.
• Includes property acquired through inheritance, partition, maintenance, gifts, purchase, or her efforts.
• Stridhana (property given during marriage) is also included as part of her absolute property.
• Exception: If property is acquired through gift, will, or court order with specific restrictions, she may not have full ownership, and those restrictions apply.

Section 13 of the Act – Computation of Degrees:

• To decide who inherits property, the relationship between the deceased (intestate) and the heir is counted in degrees.
• Degrees can be ascending (up the family tree) or descending (down the family tree).
• Each generation (up or down) counts as one degree.

The plaintiff pleaded with how he got adopted to be the son of defendant No.1. Some of the defendants did deny this, but it was confirmed by the courts. The plaintiff produced a registered adoption deed (Ext.P1), to which defendant No.1 admitted the adoption in her written statement.

The courts followed the previous case of Mst.Deu v. Laxmi Narayan, which holds a registered adoption deed to be presumed legal until the contrary is proved. Since the adoption had been proved by the plaintiff, the court declared that he was legally adopted by defendant No.1 on 16th July 1994.   

Section 12(c) of the Adoption Act, 1956

Explaining the legal effects of adoption, Section 12(c) states that once a child is so adopted, that child is treated as the child of the adoptive parents from the date of adoption:

• All family ties of the child with the biological parents are severed.
• New family ties with the adoptive parents constitute.

Section 12(c) adds that the adopted child cannot take away (or “divest”) any property or estate that was given to someone else before the adoption took place.

In this case, the adoption of the appellant (the plaintiff) happened on 16.07.1994.

The Doctrine of Relation Back

The case discusses the Doctrine of Relation Back, which means that when a widow adopts a child, the adoption is treated as if it occurred at the time of the husband’s death, giving the adopted child rights to his property. The cases of Kasabai Tukaram Karvar and Shripad Gajanan Suthankar are referenced to establish the precedent for this doctrine.

The adopted child’s rights are bound by lawful property transactions made by the widow before the adoption. In this case, the appellant (adopted child) challenges the sale and gift deeds made by the widow after the adoption. However, since the widow had legal rights to the property before the adoption, the transactions are valid, and the appellant cannot contest them. The Doctrine of Relation Back upholds the widow’s previous lawful actions regarding the property.

Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882

The key requirements for gift are:   

• A transfer of property from a donor to a donee.
• The transfer must be voluntary and without any payment.
• The donee must accept the gift while the donor is still alive.
• If the donee dies before accepting, the gift is void.

The validity of the “Gift Deed” was denied because:

• The donees, defendant Nos. 4 and 5, specifically, couldn’t be termed biological grandchildren of defendant No. 1.
• The properties mentioned in the gift deed were not delivered to the donees.
• The donees didn’t even know who possessed or took possession of the properties.

Based on these grounds, the trial court held that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 could not claim ownership of the property under the gift deed.

The High Court disagreed but didn’t provide strong reasons to overwrite the trial court’s decision. The trial court had also found that since the plaintiff was legally adopted by the deceased person, he was a rightful heir to the property. Since the reasoning of the trial court was justified, it was submitted that the High Court did not have reason to interfere with the decree without cogent and sufficient reasons.  

Conclusion: Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It held that the deed of sale dated December 13, 2007, whereby the property was transferred to defendants 2 and 3, is valid. It also voided the plaintiff’s claim of right to the other properties was not valid because the transfer of the property was not significant.

The Court was guided by the Doctrine of Relation Back, which in simple terms provides that the adopted son has taken the rights with effect from the date of the death of the adoptive father. However, any legal transactions, such as property sales, that happened before the adoption remain valid.

Concerning the gift deed dated August 27, 2008, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, thereby restoring the trial court’s finding of the gift deed being null and void. The Court noted that the High Court ignored the observations of the trial court which elaborated on the gift deed being void.

In the end, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff shall be entitled to inherit properties B and C.  In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.  

To get expert assistance in legal matters and insights on the judgments of the latest cases, visit https://taxeye.in/.

FAQs