2000 Supreme(SC) 1941

2000(8) Supreme 137
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
M. Jagannadha Rao & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka (dead) by LRs. -Appellants
versus
Jasjit Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 723 of 1973
Decided on 1-12-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Vinod Bobde, T.L.V. Iyer, G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocates, Gourab Banerjee, R.N. Karanjawala, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Hrishikesh Baruah, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, C.V. Subba Rao, K.K. Dhawan, B.K. Prasad, V.K. Verma, Dilip Jahangyani, Mahesh Agarwal, Vivek Yadav, Ashwani Kumar, E.C. Agrawala, and B. Partha Sarthy, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956-Sections 12 and 13-Adoption-Rights of adoptive parents to dispose of their properties-Is subject to agreement between parties-No implied contract restricting rights to dispose of properties-Natural father s unilateral letter offering to give in adoption-Letter stating that adopted son will alone get adoptive father s properties after his death-Letter not signed by adoptive father-Letter cannot be treated as agreement contemplated under Section 13-Nor it restricted right of adoptive father to dispose of his property during his life time-Even if treated as agreement restricting rights, it required registration in view of Sections 17(1)(b) r/w Section 49 of Registration Act-Will of adoptive father bequeathing his properties to another person valid.

       Reading Section 12 proviso (c) and Section 13 together it is apparent that adoption would not divest any person of any estate which is vested in him or her before the adoption. It also does not deprive the adoptive father or mother the power to dispose of his or her property by transfer, inter vivos or by Will. However, this power to dispose of the property would be subject to any agreement between the parties. Legislature has codified and crystalised the situation prevailing prior to the enactment of the Act that there was no implied contract on the part of the adoptive father or mother in consideration of the gift of his son by a natural father or mother that he or she would not dispose of property by transfer or by Will. However, in case of specific agreement to the contrary between the parties, the power to dispose of the property would be subject to the said agreement. (Paras 10 and 11)

       In the instant case, presuming that such letter was written by Mangal Das Kedia to Chiranjilal at the time of giving Radheysham in adoption, there can be no doubt that it does not reflect any agreement between the parties. At the most it was only a unilateral offer giving child in adoption on certain expectations. The letter appears to be signed by number of persons and if really Chiranjilal had accepted it, then he would have placed his signatures on the said letter. There is nothing on record that he accepted the same as it was. Secondly, the letter at the most indicates that from that day, Radheshyam would be the adopted son of Chiranjilal and would inherit his property. However, it was made clear in that very letter that during the life time of Chiranjilal and his wife, they were the absolute owners of their properties. There is nothing to indicate in the said letter that it was a covenant or a contract restricting the powers of Chiranjilal or his wife to dispose of the property either by transfer or by Will. Nowhere, it is stated that during his life time, Chiranjilal will not be entitled to dispose of his property either by transfer or by Will. Hence, there is no positive or negative agreement limiting the rights of Chiranjilal to dispose of the property by executing the Will. Presuming that the aforesaid letter is an agreement, at the most it can be stated that from the said date Radheshyam would be son of Chiranjilal and would be entitled to inherit his properties. This also would not mean that there is any agreement that adoptive father has no right to dispose of his property. There is no such contract to leave residue in favour of Radheshyam. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that by the said letter, there is any agreement limiting the rights of adoptive parents to dispose of their property by executing a will. Further it reliance is required to be placed on the letter for holding that if restrains Chiranjilal to dispose of the property by will, then it is required to be read as a document which limits the rights of Chiranjilal to deal with his property including the immoveable property. Therefore, it would require registration. (Paras 15, 16, 17 and 19)

       (ii) Registration Act, 1908-Section 17(1)(b) and 49-Document requiring registration compulsorily-Adoption deed restricting rights of adoptive parents to dispose of their property-Required to be registered. (Paras 18 and 19)