Patna High Court
Musammat Pranlachhi Kuer vs Jageshar Sahi And Ors. on 24 April, 1923
Equivalent citations: 106IND. CAS.423
JUDGMENT Das, J.
1. This was a suit by the respondents for a declaration in the following circumstances.
2. The properties which are the subject-matter of the suit admittedly belonged to one Garib Sahi. He died on the 29th March, 1912, leaving a widow Pranlachhi Kuer who was the defendant in the action and the appellant before us. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that Garib Sahi also left a son Babuna Sahi and that Babuna Sahi succeeded to the properties which were of Garib Sahi's and that Babuna Sahi died on the 4th October, 1914, leaving Pranlachhi Kuer as his heiress under the Hindu Law. It appears that in the Land Registration proceedings Musammat Pranlachhi Kuer applied to be recorded as the heiress of her husband'Garib Sahi. The plaintiffs allege that they are the presumptive heirs of Babuna Sahi and they contend that the assertion of the widow in the Land Registration proceedings has thrown a cloud upon their title and they are accordingly entitled to a declaration that the widow is in possession not as the heiress of Garib Sahi but as the mother of Babuna Sahi. The relief actually claimed by the plaintiffs is as follows:
That it may be held by the Court that Garib Sahi, husband of the defendant, died while living joint in family, leaving him surviving his son, Babuna Sahi, and the said Babuna Sahi died during his minority leaving his mother Musammat Pranlachhi Kuer. The properties detailed below constitute the estate of Babuna Sahi. The estate does not belong to Garib Sahi and the defendant in this suit as mother and heiress of the deceased Babuna Sahi holds possession of the properties in suit with limited life-interest.
3. An objection being taken to the maintainability of the suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiffs applied for and were allowed to amend the relief claimed in the manner following, that is to say, they were allowed to ask for a declaration that "the plaintiffs are the future heirs of the said Babuna Sahi after the death of the defendants".
4. It will be noticed that the plaintiffs do not dispute that the defendant is properly, in possession of the properties. The only controversy between the parties is as to whether Musammat Pranlachhi Kuer is in possession as the widow of Garib Sahi or as the mother of Babuna Sahi. If she is actually in possession as the mother of Babuna Sahi the plaintiffs may have some title to succeed to the properties upon the death of Pranlachhi Kuer if they should survive Pranlachhi Kuer. If, on the other hand, Pranlachhi Kuer is in possession as the widow of Garib Sahi then it appears that her daughter and after her, her daughter's son would succeed to the properties on her death. It is necessary to mention that neither the daughter nor the daughter's son is a party to the suit.
5. The question at once arises whether the suit is maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Subordinate Judge thought that it was maintainable and he had made a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act provides as follows:
Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that, he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.
6. Now the plaintiffs admittedly have no interest in the estate of Garib Sahi or of Babuna Sahi either vested or contingent, It may be that upon the death of the widow they will be entitled to the properties in suit if they should survive the widow but that interest is a spes succession is and is not an interest which would be regarded either as vested or contingent. It follows, therefore, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any legal character. Are they entitled to any right as to the properties in suit? In my opinion they have no right as to the properties either vested or contingent, and a suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not maintainable by them.
7. The question was debated in the Calcutta High Court in the case of Greeman Singh v. Wahari Lall Singh 3 C. 12 : 9 C.L.R. 349 : 6 Ind. Jur. 191 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 7. There the plaintiff claiming to be entitled in revision to certain property on the death of his grandfather's widow, sued for a declaration that certain alienations made by the widow were void as against him. The Court gave the plaintiff a declaration" of his reversionary right and Mr. Justice Mitter, delivering the judgment of the Court, set aside the order of the Court below by which it granted to the plaintiffs the declaration claimed by them in the suit. It will be useful to set out a portion of the judgment of Mr. Justice Mitter in the case:
"t is abundantly clear upon the authorities" said his Lordship "that a person who stands in the position of presumptive heir upon the death of a Hindu widow is not entitled to maintain a suit for a declaration of his so-called reversionary right. We may here cite only one case, which is exactly in point Dooli Chand v. Brij Beckon Lal Avasti 6 C.L.R. 528. Some of these cases were decided before the Specific Relief Act came into operation; but in our opinion the aforesaid Act has made no alteration in the law. Section 42 refers only to existing and vested rights, and not to contingent rights like those of a person who has only a chance of succeeding to the estate of a Hindu, after the death of a female heir in possession of the property. That also appears from a consideration of the difference in the language used by-the Legislature the illustrations (d) and (e) of Section 42. Illustration (c) contemplates a case like the present, and the Illustration (d) applies to the case of a vested right of reversion. The appellants, therefore, have no sort of interest in the suit which was brought by the plaintiff, because, if the suit was dismissed, they could not have been affected by the result; and if it was decreed, they, after the death of the widow, if they were really persons entitled to succeed to the estate of Bal Gobind in preference to the plaintiff, would have been entitled to claim this property also.
8. The Judicial Committee in the case of Janaki Ammal v. Narayanasami Aiyar 27 Ind. Cas. 161 : 39 Mr. has come exactly to the same conclusion. That was a suit by a plaintiff as the presumptive reversionary heir against a widow in possession of her husband's estate in order to protect the property; and the plaintiff made charges against the widow of waste, misappropriation, and other wrong dealing with the property. The High Court came to the conclusion: that there were no acts of waste or misappropriation by the widow but gave the plaintiff a declaration as to his title as the presumptive reversionary heir. The Judicial Committee pointed out that suits by a reversionary heir in those cases where there were alienations by the widow stood entirely on a different footing. In dealing with that point the Judicial Committee said as follows:
But a reversionary heir thus appealing to the Court namely to have the alienations made by the widow set aside "truly for the conservation and just administration of the property does so in a representative capacity, so that the corpus of the estate may pass unimpaired to those entitled to the reversion." The decision of the Judicial Committee in the case to which I have referred entirely supports the argument advanced before us on behalf of the appellant.
9. It was contended, however, by Mr. Shorishi Charan Mitter that here also the suit is in a representative capacity. According to Mr. Sorishi Charan Mitter, the suit is on behalf of the whole body of reversioners who will be entitled to succeed to the estate, assuming the widow is not holding possession as the heiress of her son, and he claims that he is entitled to have the question of heirship decided in this litigation. It maybe pointed out at once that the decision will be wholly futile, for whatever the decision may be, it will bind no person after the death of Musammat Pranlachhi Kuer. In representative actions by the reversioner to prevent waste or alienation the aliences, if alienations have already taken place, are parties, and are concluded by the decisions arrived at in their presence and if alienations have not taken place, the injunction of the Court binds, the widow and preserves the property. But here neither the daughter nor the daughter's son is a party to the suit and the plaintiffs claim no relief against the widow in possession. The decision, therefore, will not bind those persons who may claim the estate, upon the death of the widow, as the reversionary heirs of her husband. That being so, it is perfectly useless for the Court to make a declaration in the plaintiffs' favour.
10. I would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs here and in the Court below.
Kulwant Sahay, J.
11. I agree.