IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Female Hindu succession – Adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested him or her before adoption – Adoption by a widow would relate back to date of death of her husband, creating immediate coparcenary interest in joint property.
(2) Gift – In order to be valid, acceptance of gift is a pre-requisite.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the captioned appeals by Special Leave the appellant calls in question the common judgment dated 14.02.2024 of the Karnataka, High Court, Dharwad Bench, passed in RFA Nos. 100168 and 100247, of 2018 which emanated from the judgment and preliminary decree dated 31.03.2018 in OS No. 122 of 2009 of the Court of IIIrd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi.

3. The self-same appellant was the plaintiff in OS No. 122 of 2009 filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and separate possession against the defendants. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were the original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 respectively in the said suit. Pending the first appeals, respondent No. 5/defendant No. 6 died and consequently, his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 5A to 5F and they are respondent Nos. 5 to 10 in these appeals.

4. The facts of the case necessary for disposal of the captioned appeals are as follows:

One Bhavakanna Shahapurkar was the original owner of the suit schedule properties and original defendant No. 1-Smt. Parvatibai was his legally wedded wife. They had no issues in their wedlock and hence, with the consent of defendant No. 1 the said Bhavakanna married one Laxmibai without dissolving his first marriage with defendant No. 1. In his wedlock with Smt. Laxmibai, Bhavakanna Shahpurkar got two children, namely, Parashuram and Renuka. On 04.03.1982, Bhavakanna Shahapurkar died leaving behind two widows. After his demise, OS No. 266/1982 was filed by defendant No. 1 against Laxmibai, and her children Parashuram and Renuka for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. Based on a compromise, a decree was drawn in the said suit and later, in the final decree proceedings defendant No. 1 was allotted and thereby acquired 9/32 share in schedule ‘A’ and ‘D’ properties. The appellant herein/the plaintiff was adopted by defendant No. 1-Parvatibai on 16.07.1994. The adoption deed was signed and got registered by his natural father and the adoptee mother (defendant No. 1) and other witnesses. Later, the appellant came and started residing with defendant No. 1 as her adopted son after relinquishing all his rights in his natural family. At the time of his adoption the appellant was aged 21 years. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in OS No. 122 of 2009 is that on being adopted he became the legal heir of Bhavakanna and, therefore, entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties. According to him, in such circumstances, defendant No. 1 was not having absolute right or title to execute sale deed dated 13.12.2007 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 without his consent as also to execute gift deed dated 27.08.2008 in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5. Earlier, the appellant demanded for partition of the suit schedule properties. However, defendant No. 1 refused to effect partition which made him to institute the aforementioned Original Suit. In fact, in the said suit beside seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties he also sought to set aside a sale deed executed on 13.12.2007 by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) and a gift deed dated 27.08.2008 made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 as null and void.

5. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the suit schedule properties are wrongly described. While admitting the adoption of the appellant/plaintiff on 16.07.1994 as also the fact that subsequently, he came to stay with her, defendant No. 1 would state that she became the full and absolute owner of the suit schedule properties after the death of her husband Bhavakanna and further that by virtue of adoption of the appellant/plaintiff she was not divested off her ownership over the suit schedule properties. She had also refuted the claims of the appellant/plaintiff that without his consent she could not have sold the property cov