KALINDI DAMODAR GARDE (D) BY LRS. versus MANOHAR LAXMAN KULKARNI (D) BY LRS. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 632 · Decided: 07-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
KALINDI DAMODAR GARDE (D) BY LRS.
v.
MANOHAR LAXMAN KULKARNI (D) BY LRS. & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6642-6643 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 07, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Succession:
Whether the sons of adoptee (who were born prior to his
adoption) are entitled to inherit the property of the adoptive family
of their father – Held: Succession in the present case in the facts of
the case has to be decided in accordance with Hindu Succession
Act and not as per Hindu Law –There is no provision in the Act
denying the right of succession to the natural born son of an adoptee
father – All the children either born before or after adoption of
their father, in terms of s. 3(a) and (e) and Schedule of the Act,
being class I heirs, have right to inherit the property of their father
– Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s. 3(a) and (e), Schedule.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
s. 4 – The Act has overriding effect over all the texts, rule or
interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that
law in force immediately before commencement of the Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Hindu Succession Act overrides all 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. Since the succession has opened after the death of ‘L’
in January 1987, therefore, succession has to be in accordance
with the Act and not as per Hindu law as all text, rule or
interpretation of Hindu law prior to commencement of the Act
have ceased to have any effect unless expressly provided for in
the said Act. [Paras 12 and 13][640-B, D-E]
2. Since there is no provision of denying the rights of
succession to the natural born son of an adoptee father, therefore,
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 632
632
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
633
the succession will be in terms of the provisions of the Act alone.
The three sons and the appellant-daughter are born to ‘L’ and
his wife. They are agnates and related by full blood in terms of
Section 3(a) and 3(e) of the Act. As per the Schedule to the Act,
the son and the daughter of a deceased Hindu male are class I
heirs. [Paras 15 and 16][641-B-C]
3. In view of the provisions of the Act which do not make
any distinction between the son born to a father prior or after
adoption of his father and that there is no provision which bars
the natural born son to inherit the property of his natural father,
therefore, the High Court has rightly upheld the rights of the
sons of ‘L’. There was a full blood relationship between the three
sons and the daughter who was born after adoption. All the
children of ‘L’ are entitled to inherit the property of their natural
father and mother in accordance with the provisions of the Act as
succession has opened after the death of ‘L’ in 1987 and
subsequently the mother in the year 1992. [Para 21][645-D-G]
Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap
Deo (1981) 4 SCC 613 : [1982] SCR 417; Bhanwar
Singh v. Puran & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 87 : [2008] 2
SCR 775 – relied on.
Martand Jiwajee Patil & Anr. v. Narayan Krishna
Gumast-Patil & Anr. AIR 1939 Bom 305 – approved.
Kalgavda Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tamangavda
Patil & Anr. ILR (1909) 33 Bom 669 – not approved.
Tewari Raghuraj Chandra & Ors. v. Rani Subhadra
Kunwar & Ors. AIR 1928 PC 87; Kausalyabai W/o
Jagdeorao v. Devkabai W/o Jaiwantrao Deshmukh
(1978) 16 Mh.L.J. 357– referred to.
Case Law Reference
ILR (1909) 33 Bom 669
not approved
Para 6
AIR 1939 Bom 305
approved
Para 7
[1982] SCR 417
relied on
Para 13
KALINDI DAMODAR GARDE (D) BY LRS. v. MANOHAR
LAXMAN KULKARNI (D) BY LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
[2008] 2 SCR 775
relied on
Para 14
AIR 1928 PC 87
referred to
Para 18
(1978) 16 Mh.L.J. 357
referred to
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6642-
6643 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2006 of the High Court
of Judicature at  Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4650 of 1992 and First
Appeal No. 555 of 2005.
R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv., Sreenath S., Yashraj Singh Bundela,
M. Praveen Vignesh, Sriram P., John Mathew,  Advs. for the Appellants.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Vijay Kumar, Makarand D. Adkar,
Vishwajit Singh, R.C. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals arise out of an order passed by the learned
Single Be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.