Child Adopted By Widow Can Inherit Her Deceased Husband's Property: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a son adopted by a widow after the death of her husband is to be treated as the adopted son of the deceased husband as well, and inherits the husband's share.Following High Court's earlier judgment in Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari Vs. Thagai Misir, Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,“This Court in the case reported in 1966 RD 255 Subhash...
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a son adopted by a widow after the death of her husband is to be treated as the adopted son of the deceased husband as well, and inherits the husband's share.
Following High Court's earlier judgment in Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari Vs. Thagai Misir, Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,
“This Court in the case reported in 1966 RD 255 Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari Vs. Thagai Misir has held that the son adopted by widow after the death of husband will be treated to be adopted son of husband also”.
Murlidhar died issueless and his share devolved on his widow, Smt. Moti Rani. Ramji claimed that Smt. Moti Rani had adopted him by an adoption deed dated 2nd August 1960, and he had thereby inherited the share of Murlidhar.
In the basic year of consolidation, Ramji stood recorded over khata no. 96 of Village Rasauli as adopted son of Murlidhar. Ram Kripal objected under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, pleading that the entry was wrong and should be expunged.
The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection and the appeal was dismissed. Ram Kripal's revision under Section 48 of the Act was allowed in 1974, but that order was quashed by the High Court in 1981 in a writ petition filed by Ramji, with a direction to hear the revision afresh. On remand, the revision was dismissed in 1983.
In the connected matter, Ramji objected under Section 9A(2) claiming entry as a co-sharer over khata no. 123 of Village Jawania and khata no. 108 of Village Atawaria as ancestral holdings. The Consolidation Officer allowed the entry in 1983, the appeal under Section 11(1) and the revision were dismissed. Ram Kripal challenged both sets of orders before the High Court. The two petitions were heard together.
It was argued for Ram Kripal that the adoption deed could not be relied upon as the requirements of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 had not been met. It was submitted that a lacuna in the deed could not be made good by examining independent witnesses. It was further argued that once the widow's name had been substituted for that of Murlidhar after his death, the adoption deed could not be looked at.
For Ramji, it was submitted that all three consolidation authorities had concurrently found the adoption deed to have been duly executed, leaving no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court found that the earlier remand judgment and the revisional order showed the adoption deed to be proved, and Ramji had been held to be the adopted son of Murlidhar in mutation proceedings even before consolidation operations began.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sawan Ram Vs. Mst. Kalawanti and Others, which considered the scope of Section 12 of the Act.
“Considering the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court and this Court, there is no illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by the consolidation authorities in holding that Ramji will inherit as adopted son of Smt. Moti Rani and Murlidhar”.
Holding that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities left no further scope for interference under Article 226, the Court dismissed both writ petitions.
Case Title: Ram Kripal v. J.D.C. and others