Doctrine of Relating Back
Doctrine of Relating Back
Doctrine of Relating Back
According to the doctrine of relation back, under old Hindu Law, if a Hindu widow adopts a son after
the death of his husband then the adopted son will be deemed to have been adopted on the death of the
husband. It means that the adopted son will be entitled in the interest of his deceased adoptive
father.The theory was based upon the legal fiction that the continuity of the line of the adoptive father
should not break.
The principle has some variations that do not follow the law. Next, in the event that an estate had
already been inherited in the hands of collateral and the collateral died prior to adoption, the adoptee
cannot sell the properties of the collateral successor. The principle can only be enforced when there is
a question concerning the succession of the deceased father's property.
The adopted son is considered to be born on the adoptive father's death date. The ideas that arise are
that the adoption of a widow cannot be obstructed by the joint family's anterior division, and the
adopted son can claim a share as if he were begotten and alive when the adoptive father died. As a
preferential heir, an adopted son could divest his mother of the property of his adoptive father and his
adoptive mother of the property she gets as an heir of her son, died after her husband.
The doctrine of relation back applies only when the claim is made by the adopted son relates to the
property of his adoptive father.
The Doctrine of relation back has been abolished by Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act,1956 and hence it is no more a law at present.
Vasant v. Dattu AIR 1987 SC 398,
The SC clearly spelt out the operation of doctrine of relation back with regards to the
proprietary rights of an adopted child. Proviso (c) of section 12 does not prevent the
adopted child from claiming his or her share in the adoptive family.
The court held that by adopting a child to a joint Hindu family may have effect of decreasing
the shares of the members in the family. But it can't be taken as divesting any person of any
property under clause (c) to section 12.