Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Ms. Monika Gusain, learned counsel 'appearing for the State of Punjab urged that since the widow having limited right during her lifetime, she could not have transferred the interest in the land beyond her lifetime. Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that the respondents being bona fide purchasers from ostensible owners for a consideration and in good faith, the sale deed is valid under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question, therefore, arises is as to whether the widow, who had only life estate during her lifetime, could sell the interest in the land beyond her lifetime. This matter came up for consideration be'fore this Court in the case of Mt. Phool Kuer v. Mt. Prem Kuer and after her death Bohre Manohor Lal and Anr. (1), wherein it was held that where a person who has allowed another to occupy the position of an ostensible Owner has a limited estate, the rule of Section 41 applies only during the lifetime of the limited owner and is not available to protect transferees against the claim of the reversioners. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, referred to Sankara Hali & Sankara Institute of Philosophy and Culture v. Kishori Lal Goenka and Anr. (2). This case has no application as this case arose out of benami transaction. In the case of Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy and Ors. (3), the father was found to be ostensible owner and in that context, it was held that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply, which is not the case here. The widow can be ostensible owner to the extent that she has a right during her lifetime. She ceased to be an ostensible owner after her death and cannot pass on a better title than what she had. Admittedly, she had a life estate in the Property and after her death, the title in the land would revert to the Slate of Punjab.