Patna High Court
Suraj Balli Singh And Ors. vs Tilakdhari Singh And Ors. on 17 November, 1927
Equivalent citations: 107IND. CAS.151, AIR 1928 PATNA 220
JUDGMENT Kulwant Sahay, J 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who claim possession of certain properties as the reversionary heirs of one Ishar Dayal. The defendants first party took a conveyance of the property in dispute from Musammat Hulasbati Kuer, the widow of Isher Dayal. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the property in dispute formed a part of the estate of Ishar Dayal, and as the conveyance was without any legal necessity, it was not binding on them and they are entitled to possession. 2. The defence was that the plaintiffs were not the reversionary heirs of Ishar Dayal, that the property in dispute did not belong to the estate of Ishar Dayal, that Isher Dayal left a brother Gobind Singh who was joint with him, and that on the death of Ishar Dayal, Gobind took the entire share by survivorship, that on the death of Gobind, the widow of Ishar Dayal, took possession of the property although she had no right to do so, that the right of the reversioners arose immediately on the death of Gobind to take possession of the property, and as Gobind died more than 12 years before the date of the suit, the possession of the widow became adverse to the raversioners and they could not claim possession of the property. 3. The trial Court found that the deed of sale by the widow of the defendants first party was for legal necessity and that the plaintiffs were estopped from disputing the validity of the sale. It accordingly dismissed the suit. 4. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that it was not necessary to inquire as to whether the sale was for any legal and valid necessity. He referred to the fact that admittedly Gobind, who was according to the case of the plaintiffs, separate from Ishar Dayal, had an eight annas share in the property. He found that Gobind died sometime before 1894 and immediately on his death, Musammat Hulasbati Kuer took possession of Govind's eight annas share' and she got herself registered in the Land Registration Department. Her possession of Gobind's share became adverse to the rightful heirs of Gobind and such possession lasted for more than 12 years before the suit, and, therefore, Hulasbati had acquired a valid title by adverse possession so far as the eight annas share of Gobind was concerned. Therefore, as Hulasbati Kuer had an absolute interest and not merely a widow's estate in the eight annas which belonged to Gobind, the sale to the defendants first perty of 1- anna 15- gundas was a valid sale because she had more than 1- anna 15- gundas in her absolute right in the village and it did not necessarily follow that this 1 anna 15-gundas came out of the esate of Ishar Dayal. The learned Subordinate Judge accordingly dismissed the appeal. 5. In this second appeal it is contended that, assuming that Hulasbati Kuer took the eight annas of Gobind by adverse possession and acquired an absolute estate, such acquisition of an absolute estate must be treated to be an accretion to her husband's estate, because it is contended that as a widow she could not by adverse possession acquire any property for herself and whatever property she did acquire by adverse possession would be an acquisition to her husband's estate. Reference has, in this connection, been made to the decision of the Privy Council in Lajwanti v. Safa Chand 80 Ind. Cas. 788 : 6 P.L.T. 1 : 22 A.L.J. 304 : A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 121 : 5 Lah. 192 : (1924) M.W.N. 442 : 20 L.W. 10 : 2 Pat. L.R. 245 : 28 C.W.N. 960 : 26 Bom. L.R. 1117 : 47 M.L.J. 935 : 51 I.A. 171 : L.R. 5 A. (P.C.) 91 (P.C.). What was decided in that case was that "the Hindu widow is not a life renter but has a widow's estate that is to say a widow's estate in her deceased husband's estate. If possessing as a widow she possesses adversely to any one as to certain parcels, she does not acquire the parcels as stridhan but she makes them good to her husband's estate." 6. Now what their Lordships meant by this passage was that if the widow as representing her husband's estate, and she for certain purposes fully represents her husband's estates encroaches on certain property in her capacity of a widow and as representing her husband's estate, then the interest that she would acquire by adverse possession of such parcel of land would be an accretion to her husband's estate. Their Lordships did not say that the widow could not under any circumstance acquire any property for herself while holding her husband's estate. The decision of the Privy Council in Lajwanti v. Safa Chand 80 Ind. Cas. 788 : 6 P.L.T. 1 : 22 A.L.J. 304 : A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 121 : 5 Lah. 192 : (1924) M.W.N. 442 : 20 L.W. 10 : 2 Pat. L.R. 245 : 28 C.W.N. 960 : 26 Bom. L.R. 1117 : 47 M.L.J. 935 : 51 I.A. 171 : L.R. 5 A. (P.C.) 91 (P.C.) above cited was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. Prayag Narayun Singh 87 Ind. Cas. 473 : 6 P.L.T. 206 : (1925) Pat. 140 : 3 Pat. L.R. 251 : A.I.R. 1925 Pat. 523 and their Lordships there held that when a Hindu widow is in possession of any property by adverse possession, then the property would become her stridhan, and it was only if the property is held in possession by a Hindu widow claiming as the widow of her deceased husband, then the property becomes an accretion to her husband's estate. It is clear, therefore, that, unless it is shown that she took adverse possession of Gobind's share as representing her husband's estate, the interest she acquired by adverse possession would be her stridhan and would not be an accretion to her husband's estate. Here there is absolutely nothing to show that she took adverse possession of Gobind's share as representing her husband's estate. The learned Subordinate Judge was clearly right in holding that at the date of the conveyance to the defendants first party the widow had an absolute interest in an eight annas share and the sale of 1 anna 15 gundas to the defendants first party was a valid sale. This appeal is dismissed with costs. Macpherson, J.
7. I agree.