RAJENDRA KUMAR versus KALYAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 02-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAJENDRA KUMAR 
v. 
KALYAN (DEAD) BY LRS. 
AUGUST 2, 2000 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Hindu law: 
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 : 
Section 8-Adoption-By widow to her husband-Held, Shastric law is 
applicable in such cases. 
Adoption-By widow to her husband-Pre-requisites-Held, the Husband 
should expressly authorise his widow, under Shastric law, to adopt a child to 
D 
him-Adoption of a child without such express authority rightly held illegal 
by courts below. 
Section 12(c}-Adoption-Commencement of-Widow adopted to her 
deceased husband a child who was born after his death-Child's claim that 
by a legal.fiction he inherited the property of his deceased adoptive father from 
E 
the date of his death-Rejected. 
Property-Vesting of-Succession-Taking place-Meaning-Explained. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 11 Explns. VII & Vlll. 
F 
Res judicata-Constructive res judicata-Principles-Applicability of-
G 
H 
Plaintiff claimed that he was adopted by a widow to her deceased husband-
The deceased husband was allegedly the predeceased adopted son of the 
owner of suit property-Plaintiff. however, claimed possession of the suit 
property of the deceased owner-Plaintiff also claimed that one RG was not 
the adopted son of the said owner-Widow of the said owner and RG filed a 
suit against R-Trial court, held that R was not a member of the joint Hindu 
family of the said owner; that the plaintiff's adoption by R was illegal for want 
of authority from her deceased husband and that the adoption of RG by the 
said owner was proved-RG filed a subsequent suit against the said owners 
widow and R in which it was held that RG was the adopted son of the said 
owner-Held, under these circumstances, the High Court rightly held that the 
114 
RAJENDRA KUMAR v. KALYAN 
115 
suit is barred, not by the principles of the general doctrine of res judicata, but 
A 
by Expln. VIII to S.11 CPC. 
Res Judicata-Principles and objects o.f-Expluined. 
Section 11 Expln. VJ/J (as inserted by Act 104 of 1976)-Retrospective 
operation-Held, High Court rightly held that Expln. Vlll is applicable to a 
suit pending on the date of commencement of the amending Act. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Procedural law-Retrmpective operation of-Held, unless there is an 
express ban on its retrospectivity a statute dealing with matters of procedure 
B 
is retrospective-However, some differentiation exists between a procedural 
C 
statute and a statute dealing with substantive rights. 
Statute Law : 
Legal.fiction-Widow adopted to her deceased husband a child who was 
born after his death-Child claimed succession to the property of the deceased 
D 
husband, by a legal .fiction, from the date of his death-Held, such a claim 
cannot be accepted. 
Ethics : 
Judicial ethics-Adoption under Hindu law-Question of validity-
Found barred by principles of res judicata-Plaintiff made very strenuous 
submission in this regard mz the basis of S.8 of the Hindu Adoptions and 
Maintenance Act-~Held, in view of such strenuous submission, the matter 
reconsidered on merits on the principies o.f judicial ethics-However, on facts, 
S. 8 not applicable. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Res Judicata" and "Court o.f limited jurisdiction "-Meaning o.f-In 
the context of Expln. Vlll to S.11 o.f the Code o.f Civil Procedure, 1908. 
Constructive res judicata-Meaning o.f. 
"Vest", "vesting", "vested", "vest in possession" and "vest in interest"-
Meaning of-In the context o.f Hindu Law : 
Doctrines : 
Doctrines of "res judicata" and "constructive res judicata "-Meaning 
E 
F 
G 
and applicability o.f. 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The plaintiff-11ppellant instituted a civil litigation in 1968 against the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
denial of his claim for possession of the suit property. The suit property 
belonged to one ML who died in 1923 leaving behind his widow R. The 
Plaintiff-appellant alleged that he was taken in adoption in 1962 by one 
R who was married to M. Admittedly, M died in 1919. The plaintiff. 
appellant's claim was that his adoptive father M was adopted by ML as 
a son to him during his lifetime and after the death of ML, the family 
comprised of only two members, namely, K who was ML's widow and R 
who, according to the plaintiff, was ML's predeceased's son M's widow. 
The first defendant RG claimed to be the adopted son of ML, though 
according to the plaintiff, there was in fact, no adoption. The plaintiff 
contended that RG

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