CASE ANALYSIS

ON
“SHUGANCHAND V PRAKASH CHAND
(AIR 1967 SC 506)”

SUBMITTED BY: GOURA PRASAD DAS

ROLL NO.: 1982126

CLASS: BBA LL. B (HONS.) – B

BATCH: 2019-24

SUBJECT: FAMILY LAW

SUBJECT CODE: LW3016

SUBMITTED TO: MS. PRATIKSHYA PRIYADARSHINI,

ASST. FACULTY, SCHOOL OF LAW, KIIT DU
FACTS:
The Shuganchand, Shuganchand, a Jain, sought possession of certain immovable property

from the Umacharan, trespasser Umacharan Pradhan. During the course of the dispute,

Umacharan died, and Prakash Chand and two others were named as his legal representatives.

Kanakmal had adopted Mannilal during his lifetime, who died him and left his widow Sugan

Bai. As a result, his wife Jadav Bai and his widowed daughter-in-law Sugan Bai were the

only members of Kanakmal's family at the time of his death.

Sugan Bai adopted the Shuganchand in 1922-1923. The Shuganchand initiated the current

claim for possession in 1936, after Jadav Bai died in 1932. When the Shuganchand reached

the age of majority, he sought custody of the land bequeathed by his grandpa, but discovered

that the Umacharan's father, Munshi Gajpat Rai, had acquired adverse possession of it in

1925. When a demand for handover of the stated property was made, the trespasser refused to

comply, necessitating the filing of this lawsuit.

ISSUES :

The trial court in the present case formed 7 issues, however, for the sake of brevity and

clarity I would like to mention four prominent issues here

i. The issue of Validity of ownership of Mr. Kanakmal and his successor i.e.

Shangunchand (Plaintiff)

ii. The issue of Adoption of Plaintiff Mr. Shangunchand as he was a Hindu and Mr.

Kanakmal and his predecessors were Jain?

 iii. The issue of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the respondent in alleviating the

value of property by constructing the abovementioned building and trees (Valued at

15,000)

iv. Validity of Succession of Mr. Shangunchand as he was adopted after the death of Mr.

Mannilal and whether he can be construed as his legal heir without it being declared

by Mannilal.

CLAIMS:

BY PLAINTIFF

Mr. Shangunchand, the plaintiff, claims that the contested property belonged to one

Kanakmal, who died in 1910-11, and that during his lifetime, Mr. Kanakmal adopted one Mr.

Mannilal, who died before him. In 1922-23, Manilal's widow, Mrs. Sagunbai, adopted the

plaintiff Shangunchand. Mr. Kanakmal's wife (Mr. Shangunchand's grandmother) died in

1932, and the current action was filed in 1936. When the plaintiff became a major, he began

efforts to take ownership of the suit land. He discovered at this point that Umacharan Pradhan

(Respondentfather )'s had unlawfully seized control of the suit land in 1925. The suit land

was not returned to the plaintiff after he requested it from the respondents, so he filed this

lawsuit.

BY RESPONDENT

Mr. Umacharan, the respondent, countered the plaintiff's allegations with a number of

counterclaims. The first was that he had built a structure and planted some trees on the suit

property, enhancing its value while incurring significant costs. Second, Mr. Kanakmal had

not claimed possession of the suit property prior to the current suit, resulting in the suit being

barred by limitation. Third, and alternatively, it was argued that if the plaintiff was willing to
compensate the plaintiff for the Rs. 15,000 spent on the building and trees, he would be

willing to hand up control of the suit land to him.

JUDGMENTS BY COURTS

TRIAL COURT

Court Considered adoption of Mr. Shangunchand to be valid (Issue- ii) as the Genealogical

Table provided by the plaintiff was found to be correct. With regards to issue –iii, that is

expenses incurred by the plaintiff on trees and buildings the court decided it in favor of the

respondent and allowed the said materials to be returned back to him. The court passed the

Declaratory decree in favor of Plaintiff (Shangunchand) and allowed him to take possession of

suit land in 1944, 8 years after the institution of the suit (Para- 3 of the judgment).

APPELLATE COURT

Respondent post the decision in the trial court appealed in Appellate Court The court there

declared the property of garden and building in favor of respondent (Issue-iii).

HIGH COURT

Appellant when to high court post the decision in the Appellate Court, where the high court

set aside the findings of the appellate court on the (issue –iii) and didn’t decide any other issue

allowing the appeal. Further, the suit was remanded to the first appellate court.

The appellate court (Remand)- Gave judgment in favor of appellant (plaintiff) after which

responded appealed in the high court .

HIGH COURT- SUBSEQUENT APPEAL-

High Court decided the suit in favor of the respondent. In its judgment, High Court Held that-

Kanakmal’s wife (The grandmother of the plaintiff) was alive at the time of the plaintiff’s
adoption and it was she alone who was competent to decide the legal heir of Kanakmal and

therefore the adoption made by Sagunbai was not valid. Therefore, the contention which was

raised by the plaintiff of claiming possession of the suit property, on being the adopted son of

the wife of the deceased owner, stands moot. Hence he can’t claim possession of the disputed

property (Para 5 of the judgment).

SUPREME COURT

In SC, the main contention that was raised by the plaintiff’s legal representative was that the

HC in the subsequent appeal had allowed the respondents to make a fresh contention at the

very later stage of proceedings. (The contention of Plaintiff not being adopted by Jadav Bai;

grandmother of plaintiff). Further, the appellant side argued that HC ignored a very important

point in its judgment that Jadav Bai had already died before the institution of the present suit,

Jadav Bai had died in 1973 whereas the suit was instituted in 1976. The court held the adoption

of the plaintiff to be valid and held that no one other than the plaintiff can claim a preferential

title after the death of Jadav Bai in 1973. Further Court delivered into the fact that it appeared

on the basis of facts that Jadav Bai had given her consent at the time of adoption of plaintiff

and had treated him accordingly. The court criticized the HC for delving into unnecessary

issues and forgetting the basic fact of the death of Jadav Bai before the institution of the suit.

Subsequently, the respondents raised one final contention. The contention was that plaintiff

was merely an adopted son of Sagunbai and not the legal heir of Mr. Kanakmal and hence he

cannot inherit the said property. This contention was raised in accordance with the decision

given in the case of Dhanraj Joharmal Vs Soni Bai where the court mentioned that the rule of

Brahmana succession cannot be implemented in the case of Agrawal heir (due to adoption).

The Jain religion does not talk about the claim of any person belonging to a particular religion
as a condition pre-requisite for adoption. But in the absence of the contrary, the practice and

custom of the Hindu Law shall be applicable. Hence court verified the merit in the contention

of respondents however it didn’t allow them to raise this contention considering it too late to

apply any such new contention. The court, therefore, held the adoption of Shangunchand to be

valid and hence considered him to be the legal heir of Mr. Kanakmal validating his claim. Court

also noticed the longevity of the particular dispute (Para 7 of the judgment). The court allowed

the appeal and set aside the order of HC.

CONCLUSION:

A person adopts a child with certain objects. Though there are different objects of adoption

they can be broadly divided into two They are religious and secular. Religious objective is to

secure the performance of one's funeral rites and the secular objective is to preserve the

continuance of one's lineage. In Shuganchand v. Prakash Chand, AIR 1967 SC 506 case, the

Supreme Court held that Hindu Law is to be applied to Jains in absence of proof of special

customs and usages varying that law. Jains do not subscribe to the theory that a son confers a

spiritual benefit upon his father and therefore, Jains regard it as a wholly secular affair. Further,

the observation of the court regarding the time taken by this dispute proves the necessity for

urgent disposal of this issue, something which SC gave paramount importance.

*****