SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 942

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Om Prakash Sharma @ O.P. Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Prasad Shewda & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8609-8610 of 2009
Decided on : 09-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
When the husband purchased property for the benefit of his wife and her name was entered in Municipal and Land Revenue records the wife would be the real owner of the property.
Evidence of wife alone cannot sustain adoption of her husband.

Headnote:(a) Property law – Property purchased from the funds of husband for the benefit of his wife – Municipal and Land Revenue records having entries in the name of Moni Debi – Brothers of husband being no longer alive relevant facts – Husband managing the property in accordance with the practice prevailing at relevant time – High Court rightly holding the wife, Moni Debi, to be real owner of the property – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Section 3, Explanation. (Para 12, 13)

       AIR 1974 SC 171; (2007) 6 SCC 100; AIR 1965 SC 271 – Relied upon

       (b) Hindu law – Adoption – Witnesses – Evidence of PW2 not trustworthy – Evidence of other three witnesses recorded in other suit recorded after the controversy of adoption of Sitaram had already occurred – Such evidence not admissible in present controversy – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(5) & (6) – Letter produced mentioning name of Jagannath Sitaram not proving anything – Evidence of wife alone cannot sustain adoption of her husband – Adoption of Sitaram not established – Property in question therefore devolving, on death of Moini Debi, to her daughter Gomti Debi and thereafter to defendant no. 1 – Adoption of defendant no. 1 could be questioned by next legal heir but not the plaintiff – The next legal heir not challenging adoption of defendant no.1 – High Court not entering into the issue of validity of the adoption of defendant No.1 or the gift deed executed in his favour by Gomati – Fully justified as these issues had become redundant/inconsequential. (Para 19, 20, 21)

       AIR 1959 SC 504; AIR 1987 SC 962; AIR 1968 SC 947 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       According to the original plaintiff, Kishori Debi Joshi, (since deceased), the suit property was purchased by Jagannath Joshi with his funds in the name of his wife Moni Debi. The plaintiff was the wife of one Sitaram Joshi who was adopted by Jagannath Joshi and Moni Debi in the year 1942. After the marriage of Sitaram Joshi and the deceased plaintiff Kishori Debi Joshi in the year 1945, Sitaram Joshi died a few months later. On the death of Jagannath Joshi the owner of the suit property, one half of the suit property devolved on his wife Moni Debi and the remaining half on the deceased plaintiff as the widow of the predeceased son. Moni Debi died in the year 1963 and on her death her half share in the suit property devolved on her daughter Gomati Debi. On the death of Gomati Debi in the year 1967 her half share in the property devolved on the original/deceased plaintiff Kishori Debi Joshi. Accordingly, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire suit property. Plaintiff further pleaded that defendant/respondent No.1 Rajendra Prasad Shewda who claimed to be the adopted son of Gomati Debi had no basis to make any such claim as no such adoption took place.

       The defendant disputed the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant also disputed the claim that Sitaram Joshi was the adopted son of Jagannath and Moni Debi. On the death of Moni Debi in August 1963 the entire property devolved on her daughter Gomati Debi and upon the death of Gomati Debi the property devolved on the defendant No.1 Rajendra Prasad Shewda who was the adopted son of Gomati Debi. In this regard the defendant had also pleaded that a gift deed was executed by Gomati Debi during her life time in favour of her adopted son i.e. defendant No.1.

       The trial court held that the plaintiff as well as respondent No.1 were entitled to equal shares in the suit property.

       In the High Court, the appeal filed by the defendant No. 1 was allowed and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff were dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court is fully justified in its view.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The suit property comprises of land and building covered by holding No. L-395 on the Thana Lane within the Purulia Municipality, District Purulia, West Bengal.

2. The following genealogical table may be set out for ready reference and clarity of the facts that will be required to be noticed.

     Jagannath Joshi  =       Moni Debi

 (Died October 1953)     (Died August 1963)

       ¦        ¦

      Brijlal Shewda = Gomati Debi  Sitaram Joshi       =      Kishori Debi Joshi

     (Daughter)   (adopted son-1942)     (Original plaintiff)

     (Died 1967)    (Died 1946)       (Married to Sitaram in 1945)

     (Since deceased)

     ¦        ¦

    Rajendra Pd. Shewda Om Prakash Sharma @ Joshi

  (allegedly adopted son)   (adopted son)

      (Respondent No.1)   (Petitioner No.1)

3. According to the original plaintiff, Kishori Debi Joshi, (since deceased), the suit property was purchased by Jagannath Joshi with his funds in the name of his wife Moni Debi. Moni Debi, according to the plaintiff, was the name lender though in the Municipal and Land Revenue records the name of Moni Debi was entered as the owner of the suit property. The said entries were a mere pretence. The plaintiff further pleaded that she is the wife of one Sitaram Joshi who was adopted by Jagannath Joshi and Moni Debi in the year 1942. After the marriage of Sitaram Joshi and the deceased plaintiff Kishori Debi Joshi in the year 1945, Sitaram Joshi died a few months later. According to the plaintiff, Jagannath Joshi the owner of the suit property died in the year 1953 and on his death, one half of the suit property devolved on his wife Moni Debi and the remaining half on the deceased plaintiff as the widow of the predeceased son. The plaintiff further pleaded that Moni Debi died in the year 1963 and on her death her half share in the suit property devolved on her daughter Gomati Debi. On the death of Gomati Debi in the year 1967 her half share in the property devolved on the original/deceased plaintiff Kishori Debi Joshi. Accordingly, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire suit property. In this regard, the plaintiff further pleaded that respondent No.1 Rajendra Prasad Shewda who claimed to be the adopted son of Gomati Debi had no basis to make any such claim as no such adoption took place.

4. The defendant, in the written statement filed, disputed the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that though the suit property was purchased with the funds of Jagannath Joshi the said purchase was made for the benefit of Moni Debi in order to provide her with the necessary security in life as at that point of time a Hindu widow was not entitled to full ownership of property owned by a Hindu male following his death. The defendant also disputed the claim of the original plaintiff that Sitaram Joshi was the adopted son of Jagannath and Moni Debi and in this regard had asserted that there was no valid adoption, as claimed. According to the defendant on the death of Moni Debi in August 1963 the entire property devolved on her daughter Gomati Debi and upon the death of Gomati Debi the property devolved on the defendant No.1 Rajendra Prasad Shewda who was the adopted son of Gomati Debi. In this regard the defendant had also pleaded that a gift deed was executed by Gomati Debi during her life time in favour of her adopted son i.e. defendant No.1.

5. The learned trial court, on the evidence adduced before it, took the view that the property belonged to Jagannath and that the adoption of Sitaram Joshi, predeceased husband of the original plaintiff, was legal and valid. The learned trial court, therefore, held that on the death of Jagannath Joshi in 1953 the suit property devolved in equal proportions on Moni Debi and the original plaintiff who was the widow of the predeceased son. Thereafter, according to the learned trial court, on the death of Moni Debi her half share in the property devolved on Gomati Debi. The trial court further held that on th







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top