Introduction:

In the case of Sri Mahesh Versus Sangram & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10558 of 2024, the Supreme Court of India delved into the intricacies of the ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’ as it applies to Hindu Succession and Adoption laws. The case revolved around whether an adopted son could claim ownership rights over his adoptive mother’s absolute property acquired before his adoption. The bench scrutinized the interplay between the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), offering clarifications on the scope and limitations of the doctrine in the context of female Hindus’ absolute ownership rights.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The counsel for the petitioner (Sri Mahesh) argued that by the doctrine of relation back, the adoption of a child relates to the date of the adoptive father’s death, thereby granting the adopted son coparcenary rights in the joint family property, including the property held by the adoptive mother. They contended that the adoptive mother’s property, though acquired in her name after her husband’s death, must be treated as part of the joint family property, thus giving the adopted son a claim over it. They further argued that alienation of such property by the adoptive mother after the adoption could not be deemed valid if it contravened the interests of the adopted son.

The respondents (Sangram & Ors.), on the other hand, submitted that the property acquired by the adoptive mother after the adoptive father’s death became her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the HSA. They highlighted the non-obstante clause under Section 12(c) of HAMA, which expressly prohibits an adopted child from divesting any estate vested in another person before the adoption. They emphasized that the adoptive mother’s property, being her absolute ownership, could not be treated as joint family property, and any transactions executed by her after the adoption were lawful and binding.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court began by reaffirming the settled principle of the doctrine of relation back. It explained that upon adoption, the adopted child is deemed to have been in existence at the time of the adoptive father’s death, thus acquiring coparcenary rights in the joint family property. However, the Court clarified that the doctrine has its limitations, particularly when absolute ownership rights are created in favour of a female Hindu under Section 14(1) of the HSA.

The Court observed that Section 12(c) of HAMA creates a specific exception to the doctrine of relation back by ensuring that an adopted child cannot divest any estate that has already vested in another person before the adoption. It further noted that once a property is vested in the adoptive mother as her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the HSA, it ceases to be part of the joint family property, and the adopted child cannot claim any right over it retroactively. The Court emphasized that the adoptive mother retains full authority to alienate or dispose of her absolute property as she deems fit, even after the adoption.

The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Kasabai Tukaram Karvar v. Nivruti (2022) and Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar (1974) 2 SCC 156, which upheld the principle that adoption could not retroactively affect rights lawfully vested in another person. It explained that while the doctrine of relation back enables an adopted child to claim rights in the adoptive father’s property as if they were born at the time of the father’s death, it does not allow them to challenge lawful transactions or alienations made by the adoptive parent in the exercise of their absolute ownership rights.

The Court concluded that the property acquired by the adoptive mother after her husband’s death, which was vested in her as absolute property under Section 14(1) of the HSA, could not be claimed by the adopted child. It also ruled that any sale deed or transaction executed by the adoptive mother post-adoption for her pre-adoption property was binding on the adopted child. The Court dismissed the petitioner’s claim and upheld the absolute ownership rights of the adoptive mother, reiterating that Section 12(c) of HAMA prevents any retroactive annulment of rights vested in a female Hindu.