NAMDEV VYANKAT GHADGE AND ANR. versus CHANDRAKANT GANPAT GHADGE AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 25-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-~ 
NAMDEV VY ANKAT GHADGE AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
CHANDRAKANT GANPAT GHADGE AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 25, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956-Section 12 proviso (c)-
Adoption-Ejfect of-Whether adopted child entitled to claim any share in 
property already vested in heirs of sole surviving coparcener before his C 
adoption-Held: No, since adopted child cannot divest any person of any 
estate which vested in him before adoption. 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was 
whether the son adopted subsequent to the death of the sole surviving 
coparcener could divest the heirs of the sole surviving coparcener of the D 
property which vested in them prior to his adoption to claim his share in 
the suit property. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his E 
or her adopted father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date 
of adoption as is evident from the main part of Section 12 of the Hindu 
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Proviso (c) to Section 12 in clear 
terms states that the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate, 
which vested in him or her before the adoption. [306-F, G] 
1.2. In the instant case, on the death of the sole surviving coparcener, 
property in his hands devolved and vested in his heirs. The son was 
adopted four months after the death of the sole surviving coparcener and 
F 
by virtue of proviso (c) to Section 12 the adopted son could not divest the 
properties vested in the heirs of the sole surviving coparcener so as to claim G 
his share in the suit property. [306-H; 307-A] 
Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe and Ors., 
AIR (1988) SCC 845, distinguished. 
Jivaji Annaji v. Hanmant Ramchandra, AIR 37 (1950) Bombay 360, H 
299 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A approved. 
Vasant and Anr. v. Dattu and Ors., AIR (1987) SC 398 and Sawan Ram 
and Ors. v. Kala Wanti and Ors., fl967) 3 SCR 687, referred to. 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11632 of 
B 1995. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order 27.6.94 of the Mumbai High Court in 
S.A. No. 405 of 1994. 
Ramesh Singh, Ms. Divya Roy and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Appellants. 
Deepak M. Nargolkar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. This appeal is by the plaintiffs challenging 
D the validity and the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 27th June, 
1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 405 of 1994 by the High Court of Bombay 
aff'mning the concurrent findings of the trial court and that of the first appellate 
court. In order to appreciate the contentions urged before us, it has become 
necessary to state the facts to the extent necessary for deciding the questions 
that arise for consideration. The family pedigree of the parties is as set out 
E below:-
F 
G 
H 
BALI 
Vyankat (Di!d on 8.2.1978) 
I 
Peti No.I 
(Plaintiff 
No.I) 
I 
. 
Peti No.2 
(Plaintiff 
No.2) 
I 
(Resp. No.I 
(Defendant 
No.I) 
I 
Anand RaJ Died in 1930 
Widow 
Krishnabai 
(Defendant No.2 Died in 
April 1980). #Allegedly 
Adopted *Dattatraya on 
10.6.78 
I 
Sarda 
Leelavai 
(Defendant (Defendant 
No.3) 
No.4) 
I 
Bhagirathi 
(Defendant 
No.5) 
-· 
Namdev 
N.V. GHADGE v. C.G. GHADGE [PATIL, J.] 
Laxman 
Gan pat 
I 
#daughter's son 
*Dattatraya adopted 
by Krishnabai 
(Defendant No.6) 
301 
Bali had two sons, namely Vyankat and Anand Rao. Anand Rao died 
on 6.7.1930 in joint family. The defendant no.2 was the wife of Anand Rao. 
After death of Anand Rao, Vyankat became absolute owner of the suit property. 
A 
B 
The share of Anand Rao in suit property merged and the defendant no.2 had 
only right of maintenance being a widow in the joint family of plaintiffs and C 
defendant no. I. Plaintiffs and defendant no. I are sons of said Vyankat and 
defendants 3 to 5 are the daughters of said Vyankat. Defendant No. 6 is the 
adopted so11 of defendant No. 2. After death of Anand Rao, maintenance was-
used to be given to defendant no. 2. On 8.2.1978, Vyankat also died and 
thereafter defendant no. I in collusion with the defendant no.2 got the name D 
of defendant no. 2 mutated in records showing half share in the suit property 
and got half share mutated in his name in the suit properties being the Karta 
of the family. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that as per Hindu law, 
defendant no. 2 had no right over the suit property, the plaintiffs filed c

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