'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court

A widow who inherits property from her childless husband cannot transfer that property by way of an unregistered compromise decree to a person having no blood relation and no antecedent claim — and if she does, the land must revert to the husband's heirs upon her death under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

This landmark ruling was delivered on March 06, 2026 by Justice Deepak Gupta of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in two factually interlinked Regular Second Appeals concerning succession to agricultural land of 95 kanals 10 marla in Village Balwari, District Rewari. The Court allowed one appeal and dismissed the other, drawing a decisive legal distinction between a stranger and a relative as the beneficiary of a compromise decree.

Sanehi Singh was the original owner of the disputed land. After his death, the property devolved upon his four heirs — his sons Balla @ Balbir Singh and Ranbir Singh @ Raghbir Singh (the plaintiff), his son Multan Singh, and Smt. Sona Devi, widow of his predeceased son Mam Chand — each receiving a one-fourth share. Multan Singh died issueless and his one-fourth share passed to his widow Smt. Chand Bai by mutation. Similarly, the one-fourth share belonging to Smt. Sona Devi was inherited by her. During her lifetime, Smt. Chand Bai suffered a compromise decree dated 06.03.1993 in favour of Kamla Devi, a woman she had raised since childhood and described as her adopted daughter, though no formal adoption ceremony had ever been performed. In the second connected matter, Smt. Sona Devi suffered a decree dated 05.06.1992 in favour of Chand Singh. After both women died, the plaintiff — Ranbir Singh, the surviving brother of Multan Singh — challenged both decrees claiming that the property must revert to him as the heir of Multan Singh and Mam Chand under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act.

The core questions before the Court were: First, whether the property inherited by a widow from her childless husband must revert to the husband's heirs upon her death under Section 15(2)(b), regardless of a compromise decree passed during her lifetime. Second, whether raising a child as a daughter without a formal adoption ceremony under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 can create the legal status of an adopted child. Third, whether a compromise decree that creates fresh rights in immovable property in favour of a person with no antecedent or pre-existing right requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Court found that the approach of both the trial court and the first appellate court in RSA 3913 of 2003 was "legally unsustainable." The Court held that the scheme of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is explicit — while sub-section (1) lays down the general order of succession for a female Hindu dying intestate, sub-section (2)(b) carves out a specific exception providing that property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter, upon the heirs of the husband. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in Bhagat Ram (Dead) by LRs v. Teja Singh (Dead) by LRs, (2002) 1 SCC 210, and Omprakash and others v. Radhacharan and others, (2009) 15 SCC 66, the Court held that Section 15(2) overrides the general rule in Section 15(1) wherever the property is traceable to the husband.

"No Legal Status of Adopted Child Can Be Inferred Merely From Conduct or Affection"

On the plea of adoption taken by Kamla Devi, the Court was unambiguous. "Adoption under Hindu law must satisfy the mandatory requirements of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is the consistent position of law that adoption must be strictly proved, including the essential ceremony of giving and taking. In the absence of such proof, no legal status of adopted child can be inferred merely from conduct or affection. The admission of the defendant that no adoption ceremony took place is fatal to her plea." The Court noted that neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence was there any assertion of a formal adoption ceremony and that Kamla Devi herself admitted this during cross-examination. Describing Kamla Devi as a daughter in a marriage invitation card and bringing her up since childhood, the Court held, cannot substitute the legal requirements of adoption.

On the validity of the decree, the Court applied the law settled in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, (1995) 5 SCC 709, holding that a compromise decree creating fresh rights in immovable property in favour of a person with no antecedent or pre-existing right requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The exception carved out in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976) 3 SCC 119 — which allows a bona fide family settlement to operate without registration — applies only to persons having antecedent title or even a possible claim. Since Kamla Devi was admittedly unrelated to Chand Bai or Multan Singh and not legally adopted, "the decree in her favour was not in recognition of any antecedent claim but was a transfer of property to a stranger. Such a decree required compulsory registration. In the absence of registration, it does not confer title." Accordingly, RSA 3913 of 2003 was allowed, the decree in favour of Kamla Devi set aside, and the plaintiff declared entitled to a one-half share in the total holding.

"A Settlement With a Family Member Having Even a Remote Claim Partakes the Character of a Family Settlement"

However, in RSA No.1227 of 2010, which concerned the one-fourth share of Smt. Sona Devi, the Court reached a diametrically opposite conclusion because of a decisive factual distinction. The defendant Chand Singh was the real nephew of Smt. Sona Devi. The appellant's own counsel fairly conceded this relationship before the Court. The Court held that being a close collateral relative, "Chand Singh had at least a remote but legally recognizable chance of succession to the estate of Smt. Sona Devi under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Where a person has such a possible or contingent claim to succession, a settlement or arrangement entered into with such a family member partakes the character of a family settlement." Relying on Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) and Shakuntala Yadav v. Yadvinder Singh, 1998(3) RCR (Civil) 395, the Court held that a bona fide family arrangement between persons having even a possible claim to property does not require compulsory registration merely because it results in recognition or adjustment of rights. Since Chand Singh possessed a legitimate and recognizable nexus to the estate, the decree in his favour dated 05.06.1992 was valid and binding, and RSA No.1227 of 2010 was dismissed.

The twin judgments draw a clear and instructive line: a compromise decree transferring immovable property to a complete stranger, regardless of emotional ties or prior upbringing, is void for want of registration; while a similar decree in favour of a person with even a remote blood-based succession claim may validly operate as a family settlement and needs no registration. The concurrence of two errors by the courts below — misapplying the adoption law and overlooking the registration requirement — was corrected by the High Court through a common judgment that will serve as an important reference for succession and property disputes involving Hindu widows dying issueless.

Date of Decision: March 06, 2026