Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3098
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J
Rajesh S/o. Panditrao Pawar – Appellant
Versus
Parwatibai W/o. Bhimrao Bende – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 515 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Prakashsing B. Patil
For the Respondents: Mr Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil
The adopted son has a share limited to ¼ of the property post-adoption, while the biological daughter is entitled to ¾ share due to the adoption laws and succession principles.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 8, 12, and 15 - Appeal regarding ownership and share in land - Sale deeds executed by adopted son, held non-binding on the daughter, with shares determined as ¾ for the daughter and ¼ for the adopted son. (Paras 34-38)
(B) Adoption Laws - The law on adoption states that an adopted child severs all ties with their birth family. This ruling emphasizes the principle that the adopted child does not have any rights in the property of the deceased parent prior to adoption. (Paras 19-29)
(C) Jurisdictional Errors - Courts below committed errors in determining share allocations - Resulting modifications made to the original decrees from both court levels. (Paras 30-33)
Facts of the case:
The appellants purchased land from the adopted son of a deceased owner without binding rights, leading to a legal dispute over property shares.
Findings of Court:
The adopted son holds ¼ share while the widow holds ¾ share of the property; pre-existing sale deeds by the adopted son deemed null and void.
Issues: Primary issues included the validity of sale deeds post-adoption and overall share allocation among the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that principles of relation back under adoption laws do not apply post the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act's provisions, confirming the adopted son's limited rights contrary to prior rulings.
Result: The second appeal is allowed with modification of previous decrees.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over ownership and partial decreeing of shares. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. sales by the adopted child deemed invalid. (Para 11 , 30) |
| 3. adoption's impact on property rights clarified. (Para 20 , 22 , 27) |
| 4. final decision on property shares among parties. (Para 26 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard finally at admission stage with consent of both the sides.
2. Unsuccessful original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have preferred this second appeal against impugned Judgment and decree passed by the District Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 149/2014 arising out of Judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 192/2009 by the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Parbhani.
3. It is necessary to have a glance on few facts in order to throw light on the dispute. The appellants have purchased the suit property from respondent No. 2/adopted son of Kausalyabai (original plaintiff No.1 since deceased) vide three registered sale deeds dated 02.06.1995. The adoptive mother ( Kausalyabai) and sister Parwatibai had filed a suit on 17.08.2019 for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession with further declaration that sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 (adopted son) in favour of the appellants are not binding their shares.
4. During pendency of the suit, original plaintiff No. 1/ Kausalyabai died and suit was contested by plaintiff No.2/Parwatibai. The trial court was pleased to decree the suit partly as under :-
01. Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed as follows.
02. Plaintiff No. 2 is declared as owner of suit property to the extent of her half share. Defendant No.1 is declared as owner of suit property to the extent of his remaining half share.
03. Sale Deed bearing No. 1418/1995, 1419/1995, 1420/1995 all dated 02.06.1995 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 in respect of suit property Gut No. 95 ad measuring total area 8 Hector 95 Are situated at village Pimpalgaon Tong, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani (more particular described in claim clause of plaint) is declared as null and void to the extent of half share of plaintiff No. 2 and not binding on the plaintiff No. 2 Parwatabai.
04. Plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to recover her half share in the suit property.
05. Writ of precept be send to District Collector, Parbhani for its compliance according to law.
06. Parties to bear their own costs.
07. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Parbhani, original plaintiff No. 2/Parvatibai Bhimrao Bende has filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 149/2014. The said appeal came to be allowed as under :-
1) The appeal is allowed with costs.
2) The cross-objection filed by defendants/respondents is dismissed.
3) The judgment and decree passed by 4th Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Parbhani in R.C.S. No. 192/2009, dt. 30/09/2014 is hereby set aside.
4) The suit is decreed. The appellant is declared as owner of suit property and entitled for recovery of suit property from defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 shall evict within one year.
5) Sale deeds bearing registration No. 1418/1995 to 1420/1995 dt.02/06/1995 Exh. 30 to Exh. 32 are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.
6) R & P be send to trial Court.
7) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
6. The execution proceedings came to be filed at the hands of original plaintiff No. 2/Parvatibai in order to execute the Judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 149/2014.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 149/2014, the appellants/original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have preferred the second appeal by raising precise substantial questions of law.
8. Heard Mr Prakashsing B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1/original plaintiff No.2.
9. It is revealed during the course of argument and while perusing the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the appellate court
