DINAJI AND ORS. versus DADDI AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 10-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DINAH AND ORS. 
v. 
DADD! AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1989 
[G.L. OZA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Sections 12, Pro-
viso (c) and 13-Hindu Widow-Adopting son-Whether deprived of 
her rights in husband's property. 
Registration Act, 1908: Sections 17( l)(b) and 49-Document 
C creating right in adopted son to immovable property-Divesting mother 
of property-Whether requires registration-Unregistered document-
Admissibility of. 
In a suit for injunction and possession of the suit property, on the 
D basis of a registered sale deed executed by the widow of the owner of the 
property, filed by the appellants, the question of admissibility of an 
unregistered document, said to be Deed of Adoption, by which the 
widow conferred on the adopted son rights in her property and relin-
quished her right to alienate any part of the property, came up for 
consideration. 
E 
The trial court accepted the document only in proof of adoption, 
and decreed the suit. The first appellate court set aside the decree. On 
appeal, the High Court maintained tower appellate court's judgment 
and held that after executing the deed of adoption, the widow had no 
right left in the property and, therefore, a transfer executed by her 
F 
would not confer any title on the appellants. 
Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal, by special leave, in this 
Court contending that as the deed 'would be hit by section 17(1)(b) read 
with section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, regarding relinquish-
ment or conferment of right on the adopted son, the High Court was not 
G right in relying on this clause to come to the conclusion that the widow 
had no right to transfer the property in favour of the appellants. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1. Proviso (c) Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and 
H Maintenance Act, 1956, departs from the Hindu General Law and 
144 
I 
DINAJI v. DADDI 
145 
makes it clear, that the adopted child shall not divest any person of any 
estate which has vested in him or her before the adoption. 
Section 13 enacts that when the parties intend to limit the opera-
tion of proviso (c) to Section 12, it is open to them by an agreement to 
the contrary. [ 148C] 
In the instant case, the widow was the limited owner of the pro-
perty after the death of her husband. But after Hindu Succession Act, 
1956, came into force, she has become an absolute owner. Therefore, 
the property of her husband vested in her. Merely by adopting a child, 
she could not be deprived of any of her rights in the property. The 
adoption would come into play and the adopted child could get the 
rights for which he is entitled, after her death. [i47G-H] 
2. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides 
that a document, where any right in movable property is either assigned 
or extinguished, will require registration. I 1480 J . 
In the instant case, that part of the deed which refers to creation 
of an immediate right in the adopted son and divesting of the right of 
the adoptive mother in the property will squarely fall within the ambit 
of Section 17(J)(b) and, therefore, under Section 49 of the Registration 
Act, this could not be admitted if it is not a registered document. I 148E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2116 
of 1972. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.2.1971 of the Madhya 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in S.A: 517 of 1969. 
F 
S .P. Singh for the Appellants. 
Uday U. Lalit and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
OZA, J. This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 1.2.1971 
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 517/69, 
wherein the learned Judge of the High Court. dismissed the Second 
Appeal filed by the present appellant. 
G 
" 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The present appellant filed a suit for injunction and possession 
on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 28.4.66 executed by Smt. 
Yashoda Bai in his favour with respect to 1mmovaole property includ-
ing agricultural lands and houses. 
B 
c 
D 
The property originally belonged to her husband and after his 
death she got it as a limited owner and by influx of time and by COJiling 
into force of the Hindu Succession Act, she acquired the rights of an 
absolute owner. On 28.4.63, she adopted respondent Nain Singh as 
her son and executed a document said to be the Deed of Adoption. 
This document is not a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.