UGRE GOWDA versus NAGEGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 27-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UGRE GOWDA 
A 
v. 
NAGEGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
JULY 27, 2004 
[S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law-Hindu widow's right to transfer her property-A Hindu 
widow transferring property by gift deed-Suit filed for declaration that 
plaintiff was adopted son of the widow and gift deed executed by her was 
null and void-Held, adoption did not divest the widow of suit property C 
which vested in her by succession on death of her husband-Mere adoption 
did not deprive the widow of her right to dispose of her own disposable 
property. 
Deeds and documents-Plaintiff claiming title on the basis of an 
adoption-cum-settlement deed-Held, settlement has neither been stamped D 
nor does it identifY suit property nor indicates its valuation-In the 
circumstances, it did not convey any right, title or interest in favour 
plaintiff. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 136-Plea that gift of co-parcenary property was void-Held, 
cannot be permitted to be raised before Supreme Court as no question of 
law was framed in this regard in second appeal under s. JOO CPC-Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908-s. l 00. 
Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration that he was 
adopted son of defendant No. 1 and absolute owner of the suit property 
by virtue of an adoption-cum-settlement deed (Ext.P-1) executed by 
defendant No. 1; and that the gift deed executed by defendant No. 1 
E 
F 
in favour of defendant No. 2 was null and void and without any G 
authority of law; and consequently defendant No. 3 did not derive title 
from defendant No. 2. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that 
adoption was not proved. The lower appellate court held that although 
adoption stood proved, the plaintiff did not divest defendant No. 1 of 
the suit property which vested in her by succession on the demise of H 
141 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A her husband. It also held that Ext. P-1 was not a valid settlement and, 
therefore, the plaintiff did not become owner of the suit property. The 
High Court, in the second appeal filed by the plaintiff, held that Ext. 
P-1 vested the suit property in the plaintiff; that the gift deed was null 
and void and consequently defendant No. 3 did not derive any title to 
B the suit property. Aggrieved, defendant No. 3 filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Adoption did not divest 1st defendant of the suit 
property which vested in her by succession on the death of her 
C husband. Transfer of title in favour of the plaintiff had no relevance 
with the adoption because mere adoption did not deprive defendant no. 
1 of her right to dispose of her own disposable property. An adoption 
of a son does not deprive the adoptive mother of the power to dispose 
of her separate property by transfer or by will. (144-G-H; 145-A-B) 
D 
Hindu Law by Mui/a-17th Edn. pp. 447 & 449, referred to. 
2. The High Court erred in holding that the recital in Rx. P-1 
was sufficient to constitute transfer of the title and that it vested the 
suit property in the plaintiff. As held by the lower appellant court, 
E Ex. P-1 has been stamped. It does not identify the suit property. It did 
not contain valuation. In the circumstances, it did not convey any right, 
title or interest in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court and the lower 
appellate court rightly held that there was no valid settlement. 
(145-B-C) 
F 
3. The plea that gift of co-parcenary property was void, cannot 
be permitted to be raised at this stage as no question of law was framed 
by the High Court in second appeal under s.100 CPC as to whether 
suit property was coparcenary. The judgment of the High Court 
proceeds on the footing of the suit property as the separate absolute 
G property of the widow. (145-F-H) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5318 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.1998 of the Kamataka High 
H Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1452 of 1995. 
.... 
'· . 
UGRE GOWDA v. NAGEGOWDA [KAPADIA, J.] 
143 
S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni and Mrs. A 
Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant. 
R.S. Hegde, G.V. Chandrashekhar and P.P. Singh for the Respond-
ents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
KAPADIA, J.: This is an appeal by special leave filed by the original 
defendant no. 3 against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 1998 
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in RS.A. No. 1452 of 1995, by 
which suit no. 36 of 1988 filed in the C

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