Disha Agarwal | ICFAI Hyderabad | 13th August 2020
Kalindi Damodar Garde Vs. Manohar Laxman Kulkarni
Facts:
Laxman was adopted by Saraswati along with his three sons Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar in 1935. After the adoption, Kalindi (daughter) was born to Laxman and his wife. When the natural father of Laxman effected partition, he was excluded from the property of his natural father as he was gone to Saraswati in adoption. Subsequently, Saraswati died and Laxman inherited the property of Saraswati and this forms the subject matter of the present dispute. However, after the death of Laxman there was a dispute on the question of property between his sons and daughter. Kalindi had applied for mutation of revenue records and including herself as her mother as owners which was disputed by Manohar at various stages. After the death of Padmavati, she had left her property in the name of her sons. Thus, Dattatraya filed a suit for partition, separate possession and mesne profit against forcible possession by Kalindi.
Issue:
Whether Laxman’s sons (Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar) who were born prior to the date of adoption are entitled to the share in the property in dispute according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Rules/Statues:
In the present case, the following provisions are involved:
Definitions:
3(a) agnates: one person is said to be an agnate of another if the two are related by blood or adoption wholly through males;
3(c) cognates: one person is said to be a cognate of another if the two are related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males;
Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
Overriding effect of Act. – Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act:
(a) any text rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the following provisions:
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if them is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
Analysis:
The Court rejected the interpretation of Hindu law as laid down in “Kalgavda Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tamangavda Patil & Anr”[1] which stated that the children that are born before the respective adoption will not pass with the adoptee in the adopted family and thereby will not be entitled to any share in the property of the adopted family. It was stated that the situation has evolved over the years and has led to a significant transformation with the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The present act nullifies all the text, rule, interpretation of the Hindu law or any custom or usage which was prevalent before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act[2], by way of Section 4.
The Court also observed that it is a settled principle that as succession has opened after the commencement of the said Act, it should be done in conformity with the provisions of the said Act[3] and not according to Hindu law, custom, usage etc. The Court also stated that Laxman’s sons (Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar) and daughter (Kalindi) are agnates and related by full-blood as per Section 3(a) of the Act, they form Class 1 heirs.
Thus, Supreme Court emphasized that when there are was no restriction specifically denying the rights of natural son to the adoptee father, it concluded that in conformity with the Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 the son born before the date of adoption will not be denied his right of inheritance.
Conclusion:
With the evolution over the years, the Court has taken a modern liberal view in delving upon the question of inheritance of the natural son of an adoptee father. It can rightly be said that the Court has made a paradigmatic shift overriding Hindu customs and giving preference to the proposed enactment. With the absence of any specific restriction on denial of rights to the respective sons, it can be concluded that a just and fair interpretation has been made in this regard. Thus, there is no distinction made between the son born to a father before adoption or after adoption.
[1] 3 Ind Cas 809
[2] Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo (1981) 4 SCC 613
[3] Bhanwar Singh v. Puran & Ors (2008) 3 SCC 87
Leave a Reply