This article is written by Soumya Lenka. The article concerns itself with the background, pertinent facts, arguments on both sides, and the court’s reasoning while delivering the verdict. The article deals with the legality of the adoption of Brijendra Singh with regard to Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Further, the case deals with his right as a legally adopted son to hold a piece of agricultural land in consonance with Section 10 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.

Introduction

The case concerns itself with the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in particular.  After a strict analysis of the provisions of Hindu law, it becomes evident that there is a great deal of difference between a female Hindu who is divorced and someone who is leading a life like a divorced woman. The latter, though living in a pathetic and deserted state, cannot be considered a divorced woman in the eyes of the law, and the former, whose marriage is absolutely dissolved, is only considered a divorcee under the said framework of the Hindu Marital Jurisprudence postulated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case was a civil appeal (filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908) in 2001 and was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2008. The case serves as a precedent for the validity of adoption by a married woman (with regard to Section 8(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956) who resides out of the marital union, like that of a divorced woman after being deserted by her husband. The judgement delves into the rights of the adopted child in relation to a land dispute concerning the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. The precedent tries to answer the plausible correlation between a legal adoption and a legally executed will and whether the validity or legality of adoption has any bearing on the legality of a will executed by a woman in favour of the adopted child.

Details of the case 

• Case name: Brijendra Singh vs. State of M.P. and Anr.
• Petitioner: Brijendra Singh 
• Respondents: State of M.P. and Anr.
• Case type: Civil Appeal (Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC, 1908)
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Hon’ble Justices Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam
• Date of judgement: 11.01.2008
• Citation: AIR 2008 SC 1056 

Facts of the case 

The backdrop of the case was set in 1948. Sometime in 1948, Mishri Bai was married to a man named Padam Singh in a village named Kolinja, situated in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The woman was crippled, as she didn’t have legs. Her marriage was a forced one, as in her village, a virgin girl could not live unmarried after she had attained a certain age. Unfortunately, after her marriage, her husband Padam Singh left her, and after that, she returned to her parents home and lived with them. 

Seeing her plight, her parents bequeathed a huge piece of agricultural land, measuring about 32 acres, in her name for her expenses and maintenance after their demise. In 1970, as per the records, Mishri Bai adopted a son named Brijendra Singh. In 1974, Padam Singh died. In a major turn of events, unfortunately, an issue arose with regard to her land holdings and her adoption of Mr. Brajedra Singh, who is the petitioner in the impugned case. The Sub Divisional Officer, Vidisha, served a notice on Mishri Bai under Section 10 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. It was alleged that Mishri Bai’s holding of the land bequeathed to her by her parents exceeded the prescribed limit as per the impugned Act. 

Replying to the allegation in the notice, Mishri Bai filed a reply contending that Brajendra Singh was her legally adopted son, and as both of them constituted a joint family, they were entitled to hold a land of 54 acres, and hence she was legally entitled to hold the said agricultural holding of 32 acres under Section 10 of the M.P. Ceiling on the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. On 28th  December, 1981, the subdivisional officer issued a notice to her reply, disbelieving her contention that Brijendra Singh was her legally adopted son on the ground that there was no mention of the adoptive father’s name in the registers of educational institutions. Hence, there was no joint family as per law, and consequently, her contention that she has the right to hold an agricultural holding of 54 acres as a joint family didn’t have any sanction of law. The notice clearly stated that she had violated the provisions of the MP Ceiling on the Agricultural Holdings  Act, 1960, and had to vacate the extra land. 

Aggrieved by such notice, on 10th January, 1982, Mishri Bai approached the trial court by initiating a civil suit. In the civil suit, she made a declaration that Brijendra Singh was her adopted son. On 19th  July, 1989, she executed a registered will in the name of her adopted son, Brijendra Singh, bequeathing all her property in his name. She took her last breath in 1989. On 3rd  September, 1993, the trial court in which the declaration suit was filed gave a decree in favour of Mishri Bai and held Brijendra Singh as her legally adopted son.

The judgement of the trial court was challenged by the state. The first appellate court confirmed the decision of the learned trial court and held Brijendra Singh to be her adopted son. The Appellate Court was in firm view that Mishri Bai adopted Brijendra as her son, and in the will, she executed all her property in his name. The state, aggrieved by this decision, challenged the same in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, contending that the adoption lacked legal sanctity as it was undertaken without the consent of Mishri Bai’s husband, despite her marriage subsisting when the adoption took place. The High Court, allowing the appeal of the State, held that a female Hindu nevertheless adopted a child, but at the same time, she should comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 8(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in order to make such adoption valid in the eyes of law. The Court held that there is a great sort of difference between a divorced woman and a woman who is living as a divorced woman despite the subsistence of her marriage. 

The High Court held that the trial court and the first appellate court erred in holding that Mishri Bai was a divorced woman and that her marriage was subsisting when she adopted Mr. Brijendra Singh. Hence, the High Court held that the adoption by Mishri Bai was invalid. It was held that, as Mishri Bai and Padam Singh were living separately after the marriage, the marriage still subsisted when she adopted Brijendra. It is clearly postulated that a Hindu married woman cannot adopt as per Section 8(c) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and hence such adoption has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. The Court hence dismissed the declaration suit of Mishri Bai and held that Brijendra Singh was not the legally adopted son of Mishri Bai and that the bequeathment of the property to Brijendra has no legal standing and is absolutely null and void. Aggrieved by this, Brijendra Singh, the adopted son of Mishri Bai, filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court of India challenging the High Court’s verdict.

Issues raised

1. Is Mr. Brijendra Singh (the petitioner)  the legally adopted son of Smt. Mishri Bai?
2. Is the bequeathment of the said property by Mishri Bai to the petitioner valid?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioners 

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh erred in holding that Mishri Bai’s marriage subsisted while she adopted the petitioner, Mr. Brijendra Singh. It was argued that, as far as the records are concerned, there was no consummation of marriage whatsoever after the marriage between Mishri Bai and Padam Singh, as the parties were living separately for a long period of time. Hence, it was submitted that an inference that the marriage ceased to legally exist between Mishri Bai and Padam Singh based on these circumstances was well conceived by the trial court and the first appellate court. The counsels argued that the learned High Court erred in considering such a marriage as a legally valid one as the marriage lacked any legal sanctity. Putting heavy reliance on the Apex Court’s verdict in the landmark case of Jolly Das (Smt.) Alias Moulick vs. Tapan Ranjan Das (1994), it was submitted that the marriage between the parties constituted a sham marriage on the face of it. Since anything that stems from an arbitrary action is in itself arbitrary, the same applies for the impugned case. Hence, it was submitted that the decision of the High Court that Mr. Brijendra Singh is not the legally adopted son of Mishri Bai stands on the prior consideration of the court that the marriage of her with Padam Singh subsisted when the adoption took place. Hence, such an observation stands on a misguided consideration and hence should be set aside by the Apex Court.

Further, it was submitted that the learned trial court and the first appellate court strictly assessed the material, facts, and circumstances of the case and rightly observed that Mishri Bai was living like a divorced woman. Hence, she should be considered a divorced woman in the eyes of the law and society at large. It was held that she would not strictly be guided by the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which provides that a married woman cannot adopt a child. To put it concisely, Mishri Bai was to be considered a divorced woman in the eyes of the law and was rightly entitled to adopt Mr. Brajendra Singh. The petitioner further submitted that the trial court and the first appellate court were right in holding Mr. Brijendra Singh as the legally adopted child of Mishri Bai and that they form a joint family and are legally entitled to the possession of the disputed land.

Respondent

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents concurred with the view of the learned High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It was submitted that the learned second appellate court has not erred in overturning the decision of the trial court, and hence the decision must be upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was argued that the learned trial court and the first appellate court’s have not exercised judicial soundness by considering Mishri Bai as a divorced woman. It is quite evident that when she adopted Mr. Brijendra Singh as her son, she had a subsisting marriage, and going by the law as stipulated under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, she is not entitled to adopt a child. Hence, the said adoption lacks any legal sanctity.

Coming to the dispute land, the respondents (appearing on behalf of the state) held that the contention of the appellants that Mr. Brijendra Singh and Mishri Bai are a joint family is not a legally sound contention. It was further submitted that there is no basis on which they are in any way entitled to hold the dispute land. Such a claim is flawed. It was submitted that, as the adoption itself is prima facie invalid, Mr. Brijendra is in no way the legal son of Mishri Bai. There exists no joint family, and subsequently, Mishri Bai and Brijendra Singh do not have the right to hold disputed land. Hence, the state of Madhya Pradesh has the authority to issue proper directions to do away with the extra land as per the M.P. Ceilings Act.

Laws involved in Brijendra Singh vs. State of M.P. and Anr. (2008)

Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, postulates the requisites for an adoption to be legally valid. It provides that for an adoption to have legal sanction, the following conditions are to be met:

• Clause (i) provides that the person so adopting should have the capacity and the right to take part in adoption.
• Clause (ii) provides that the person who is giving in adoption should also have the right and the capacity to give such a child or person who is being adopted. 
• Clause (iii) provides that the child or person being adopted should be legally capable of being taken in adoption.

Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, concerns itself with the right of a female Hindu to adopt a child. It has been postulated in the impugned provision that a female Hindu is entitled to adopt under three conditions.

• Clause (a) provides that if she is of sound mind, she can adopt. 
• Clause (b) provides that if she is not a minor under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, she can take a child in adoption. 
• Clause (c) postulates that she can take a child in adoption if she is not married, or if married, her marriage must have been dissolved (position before the 2010 amendment). 
• Clause (c) further postulates that she can adopt if her husband is dead, has completely renounced the material world and has become an ascetic, has  ceased to be a person within the Hindu dharmic fold or whose husband has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.

Section 10 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960

The provision provides for the collection of information. Clause 1 of the provision provides that if any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area fails to submit the return under Section 9 of the Act, the competent authority can take action. It provides that the competent authority may, by notice, require such person to furnish the return within the time specified in the notice. Further, on his failure to do so, the competent authority is empowered to obtain the necessary information in such a manner as may be prescribed.

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Jolly Das (Smt.) Alias Moulick vs. Tapan Ranjan Das (1994)

In the impugned case, the petitioners have relied on this landmark precedent to justify that the marriage of Mishri Bai was a ‘Sham Marriage’. The judgement talks about what constitutes a sham marriage. The precedent concerns itself with a marriage where a 19 year old woman was married to a man who was more than forty years old. In the said case, the court held that as the consent of the girl who was the respondent was obtained by means of fraudulent methods, the marriage is to be declared void under Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Based on this, in the impugned case, the petitioners pleaded that a similar issue exists, as Mishri Bai never intended to marry and was forced to marry a person who left her soon after marriage as she was a crippled lady, and that the same constitutes a sham marriage.

V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar vs. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar (1962)

This precedent has been relied upon by the court while giving its verdict on the issue of whether Brijendra Sinbgh is the legally adopted son of Mishri Bai or not. The impugned precedent revolves around the object and purpose of adoption in Hindu society. The judgement postulates that in Hindu society, adoption is primarily based on spiritual reasons. Hereditary benefit is always a secondary objective. Based on this, the court held that the legal sanctity of adoption has to be accessed or judged primarily on the basis of spiritual reasons rather than other secondary purposes.

Hem Singh vs. Harnam Singh (1954) 

The impugned case was also relied upon by the bench to find the true purpose of the adoption. Here also, the court found that the precedent is quite clear and unambiguous over the fact that in cases of adoption in Hindu society, the primary issue to judge its validity is to assess the spiritual reasons behind it rather than any other reason.

Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar vs. Sanatan Singh (1933)

This pertinent case of Privy Council was also relied upon and put emphasis upon by the bench while delivering the judgement in the impugned case of Brijendra Singh. In this case, it was held that within the Hindu Dharmic fold, the primary purpose of adopting a son is attached to the spiritual practice of doing the necessary rites that one heir is obliged to do after the death of his parents. Hence, the court, relying on this first ever judgement of the privy council on the validity of adoption among Hindus, held that to determine the legality of the adoption of Mishri Bai, one major factor is to determine whether Mishri Bai adopted Brijendra Singh because her husband deserted her soon after marriage and she didn’t have any heir to perform her last rites or if there is any other reason for the said adoption. 

Kishori Lal vs. Chaltibai (1958)

In this case, it was held that sometimes adoption is carried on for nefarious motives, depriving the original heirs and close relatives of their share of the property because of some family dispute or personal tensions between members. Based on this judgement, the Hon’ble Bench of the Court held that to ascertain the legality of Brijendra Singh’s adoption, it is pertinent to delve deeper into the motive behind such adoption.

Judgement of the case

The two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held unanimously that a Hindu married woman cannot adopt a child on a combined reading of the provisions of Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and hence Mr. Brajendra Singh is not the legally adopted son of Mishri Bai. Coming to the disputed land, the court held that the state should do away with the extra land as per the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. Further, the Court held that the will has nothing to do with whether Mr. Brijendra is the legally adopted son of Mishri Bai or not. It was held that the will is valid and Mr. Brijendra is entitled to the property of Mishri Bai, excluding the extra land. It was further directed that the extra land would be disposed of as per the directions of the state.

Rationale behind this judgement

The verdict was unanimous and cleared pertinent concepts with regard to a married woman’s right to adopt, the validity of a will in consonance with an invalid adoption, and also shed light on the concept of sham marriage.

Whether a married woman can adopt a child under Hindu law

The Court unanimously held that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not erred in holding that Brijendra Singh is not the legally adopted son of Mishri Bai. After a strict analysis of Sections 5, 6, 7, and, most importantly, 8(c) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the court was of the opinion that the language of the statute is quite clear and no ambiguous construction whatsoever cannot be made that a married woman who is living like a divorced woman has the right to adopt a child. The court was of the view that a married woman cannot adopt while under the subsistence of marriage and that any adoption made by her during such subsistence is legally void and has no legal sanctity. 

Whether Mishri Bai and Padam Singh’s marriage was a sham marriage

The bench refuted the contentions of the petitioners that the marriage between Mishri Bai and her husband, Padam Singh, is a sham marriage. It held that the case of Jolly Das (Smt.) Alias Moulick vs. Tapan Ranjan Das (1994), relied upon by the petitioners, is based on a different factum, and the same does not have any application in the present case. The court held that despite the desertion of Mishri Bai by her husband Padam Singh, there was no dissolution of marriage whatsoever when she adopted Brijendra Singh. Hence, it was held by the Hon’ble Court that she was not entitled to adopt Brijendra Singh, being a married woman, and the adoption thus lacks legal sanctity.

Do Mishri Bai and Brajendra Singh form a joint family

The Court, refuting the contention of the petitioners, held that Mishri Bai and Brajendra Singh do not form a joint family as Brajendra Singh is not a legally adopted son of Mishri Bai. Hence, the contention that they are entitled to hold a maximum of 54 acres of agricultural holding is devoid of any merit. 

Does the validity of adoption have anything to do with the validity of the will

Adjudicating on the question of the validity of the will, the court held that the legality or validity of the testamentary disposition has nothing to do with the validity of adoption. It held that the bequeathment of property that Mishri Bai has made in the name of Brijendra Singh is valid in the eyes of the law. Hence, he is rightfully entitled to enjoy the bequeathed property.

Is Brijendra Singh entitled to the extra piece of land 

Adjudicating on the question of the state’s right to the extra land, the court held that Brijendra Singh is not entitled to enjoy the extra agricultural holding beyond what is stipulated under the M.P. Agricultural Holdings Ceiling Act, 1960, and hence the state has the complete discretion to issue any direction that it thinks fit to dispose of the extra agricultural holding.

Obiter Dicta

Further, the court, in a sympathetic tone, held that though Brijendra Singh is not the legally adopted son of Mishri Bai, he has been the only support of the crippled lady, i.e., Mishri Bai, and hence the court permitted the appellant to be in possession of land for a period of six months, by which time the government may take any appropriate decision in the matter.

Analysis of the case

The verdict serves as a precedent for the adoptive rights of a married woman and settles the law that a married woman is not entitled to adopt a child under any circumstances, and the child so adopted doesn’t have any legal standing to be called her heir. The landmark decision clears up the ambiguity between who a divorced woman actually is in the eyes of Hindu law. It settles the law that a woman whose marriage is subsisting but is still living as a divorcee is not a divorced woman. Further, the case clears the law with regard to the validity of testamentary dispositions. The Court unanimously held that the validity of a will has nothing to do with the legal validity of one’s adoption, and in fact, any person can dispose of his or her property in a will to any person, not necessarily a relative of his or hers.

Conclusion 

The Court, in its verdict, made it clear that a married woman has no right to adopt under any circumstances. One key takeaway from this verdict is that the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, are a bit orthodox and should change, which will pave the way for a married woman to adopt a child prior to her husband’s consent. This will certainly further the constitutional principle and, in a larger sense, the promise for gender parity and justice. The landmark verdict asserts that in Indian democratic polity, the rule of law is supreme and also instills a sense of faith in the Indian judiciary, which has time and again protected the doctrine of the rule of law. The obiter dicta also makes it evident that the Indian Judiciary and the Indian Polity are not sympathetic, consider issues beyond the comprehension of legality and constitutionality, and treat such issues according to the guiding principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Which Act is involved in the case of Brajendra Singh vs. State of M.P.?

The case revolves around the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The case concerns itself with the adoptive rights of a woman and settles the law that a married woman is not entitled to adopt under Section 8(c) of the HAMA, 1956, as long as her marriage subsists.

Which section of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short, the Ceiling Act) prescribed limits for agricultural holdings?

Section 10 of the M.P. Ceiling Act prescribes the maximum agricultural holding that a person can hold in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

What kind of suit did Mishri Bai file in the trial court for declaring Brijendra Singh as her adopted son?

Mishri Bai filed a declaration suit in the learned trial court to declare Brijendra Singh as her legally adopted son. A suit for declaration relief is filed invoking Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by a person who wants the court to ascertain or declare such a right.

References

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/hindu-adoption-maintenance/ 
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/adopting-child-hindu-law/