Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. has held that A legal principle known as the Doctrine of Relation Back permits some rights or acts to become operative retrospectively from a date earlier than the actual date of occurrence. The theory protects the individual from the harm that occurs between the time of enforcement and the actual occurrence of the rights or interest since the rights were enforceable earlier. 

What was the Background of Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors. Case? 

• In this case, Bhavakanna Shahapurkar was the original owner of the disputed properties. He had two wives - Parvatibai (first wife) and Laxmibai (second wife). 
• Parvatibai was his legally wedded first wife. Since they had no children, she consented to Bhavakanna marrying Laxmibai without dissolving the first marriage. 
• From his marriage with Laxmibai, Bhavakanna had two children - Parashuram and Renuka. 
• Bhavakanna died on 4^th March 1982, leaving behind his two widows. 
• After his death, Parvatibai (first wife) filed a suit against Laxmibai, Parashuram and Renuka for partition and separate possession of properties. 
• This suit was settled through a compromise, and in the final decree proceedings, Parvatibai was allotted 9/32 share in schedule 'A' and 'D' properties. 
• On 16^th July 1994, Parvatibai adopted Mahesh (the appellant) as her son. The adoption deed was signed and registered by his natural father and Parvatibai. 
• After adoption, the appellant came to live with Parvatibai and relinquished all rights in his natural family. He was 21 years old at the time of adoption. 
• Later, Parvatibai executed two contested transactions: 
  • A sale deed dated in favor of defendants 2 and 3. 
  • A gift deed in favor of defendants 4 and 5. 
• The appellant (adopted son) filed suit claiming: 
  • He was entitled to half share in the suit properties. 
  • The sale deed and gift deed executed by Parvatibai were invalid without his consent. 
  • He demanded partition of the suit properties. 
• During the pendency of the case, Parvatibai (defendant No.1) passed away. 
• Trial Court's Observations: 
  • Partially decreed the suit filed by the appellant. 
  • Declared the gift deed executed by Parvatibai in favor of defendants 4 and 5 as null and void. 
  • Granted entire suit schedule B and C properties to the appellant as the sole legal heir of Parvatibai. 
  • Rejected Mahesh's claim regarding schedule A property. 
  • Upheld the sale deed executed by Parvatibai in favor of defendants 2 and 3. 
  • Found that Parvatibai was not aware of the contents of the gift deed. 
  • Noted that the gifted properties (B and C schedule) were never delivered to defendants 4 and 5. 
• High Court's Observations: 
  • Set aside the trial court's judgment and decree. 
  • Held that Parvatibai was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. 
  • Found that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the registered gift deed. 
  • Interfered with trial court's findings regarding the gift deed without detailed discussion. 
  • Aggrieved by the decision of the present petition is filed by the appellant. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Regarding Sale Deed: 
    • Confirmed the concurrent findings of lower courts that the sale deed dated was valid. 
    • Held that the appellant was bound by this alienation due to the cumulative effect of earlier compromise decree. 
  • Regarding Gift Deed: 
    • Quashed and set aside High Court's judgment. 
    • Restored trial court's judgment declaring gift deed as null and void because:  
      • Acceptance of gift was not proven. 
      • No delivery of property took place. 
      • Defendants 4 and 5 falsely claimed to be grandchildren of Parvatibai. 
      • Properties remained in Parvatibai's possession until her death. 
      • The High Court erred in reversing the trial court's finding without sustainable reasons. 
  • Applied key legal principles: 
    • Adoption and its Effects: 
    • Established that once adoption is proven through a registered deed, it is presumed valid unless disproven under Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). 
    • An adopted child becomes legally equivalent to a natural-born child from the date of adoption. 
    • All ties with the birth family are severed and replaced by those in the adoptive family. 
  • Doctrine of Relation Back: 
    • An adoption by a widow relates back to the date of death of her husband. 
    • The adopted child is treated as if born to the deceased husband. 
    • Creates immediate coparcenary interest in joint property. 
    • However, lawful alienations made before adoption remain binding on the adopted child. 
    • Rights and Limitations of Adopted Children: 
      • Cannot divest any person of estate vested before adoption under Section 12 of HAMA. 
      • Right to challenge previous alienations depends on:  
      • The capacity of the person making the alienation. 
      • The nature of the alienation. 
    • Requirements for Valid Gift (Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act,1882): 
      • Must be voluntary transfer without consideration. 
      • Requires two essential elements:  
      • Offer by donor 
      • Acceptance by donee 
    • Acceptance must include actual delivery of property. 
    • Mere registration of gift deed is insufficient without actual transfer of possession. 
    • Property Rights of Female Hindu (Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1955): 
      • Property possessed by female Hindu becomes her absolute property. 
      • She holds it as full owner, not limited owner. 
      • Includes property acquired through various means including inheritance, partition, or maintenance. 
  • Concluded that: 
    • Appellant’s adoption was valid and legally established. 
    • As an adopted son, he was entitled to challenge invalid alienations. 
    • He was entitled to entire B and C schedule properties as sole heir of Parvatibai. 
    • The sale deed of A schedule property would remain valid and binding on him. 
• The Supreme Court thus provided a balanced judgment by upholding valid transactions while protecting the adopted son's rights against invalid alienation. 

What is the Doctrine of Relation Back? 

About: 

• As per the black’s law dictionary the doctrine is defined as ‘a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time’.  
• It means an act done by a person in the present can be linked with the previous acts.  
• The doctrine has different applicability with the different laws.  

Objective: 

• The doctrine is useful for removing ambiguity at the time of delivery of justice.  
• It helps to avoid limitations and restrictions in a case.  
• It further reduces the chances of making mistakes.  

Applicability: 

• Hindu law:   
  • Section 12 of HAMA provides that the child so adopted will not divest or deprive any person of any estate which is vested in him before the adoption. Thus, adoption would have no effect on the estate which is already vested in a person.    
  • Section 12(c) of HAMA denies the theory of relation back which was applied and used in the case of vesting and divesting of property.  
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): The doctrine of relation back is impliedly given under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. It provides that a court can allow a party to a suit to amend the pleadings at any time before the trial, if it is necessary to determine the issues between the parties.    
• Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA): The application of the doctrine of relation back under the ICA can be found in the concept of ratification given under Section 196 of the ICA.  
• Limitation Act, 1963: Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly provides that the substitution or addition of parties will be governed by the doctrine of relation back.