Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: "reversioner" in Mt. Janki Kuer And Ors. vs Chhathu Prasad And Ors. on 23 July, 1957Matching Fragments
1. This appeal was originally filed by defendant No. 1, Mosammat Janki Kuer. Later, some other defendants were transposed to the category of appellants. The suit was by the reversioner for a declaration that the several alienations mentioned in the plaint made by defendant No. 1 were not binding upon the reversioners because the alienations were not justified by any legal necessity. In the view which we have taken of 'this case, it is not necessary to deal elaborately with the facts, but it would be better to state a short genealogy of the family of defendant No. 1.
2. The defence was that the alienations were justified by legal necessity, and, therefore, binding on the reversioners.
3. The Court below held that several of the alienations were valid and for legal necessity and others were not valid and binding upon the reversioners. Defendant No. 1, the alienor, as already mentioned, originally filed this appeal, and, thereafter the alienees have also got themselves transferred to .the category of appellants.
4. Mr. De, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that in this case the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (XXX of 1956) applies, and this appeal is concluded by the authority of this Court in Ram Ayodliya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, 1956 Pat LR 486: 1956 BLJR 734: ((S) AIR 1957 Pat 480) (A). The facts of that case were as follows : The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the sale-deed executed on the 11th July, 1914 by one Mosammat Sureba Kuer in favour of one Sitaram was farzi, without consideration and without legal necessity and, as such, not binding upon the plaintiff.
"........ as the law stands at present the plaintiff has no interest in the property either of Mosammat Parkalo Kuer or of Mossammat Sureba Kuer. The plaintiff has no vested interest nor has he any spes successions in the property which is the subject-matter of the present litigation. Under the Hindu Law as it stood before the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of 1956) every female who succeeded as an heir, whether to a male or to a female, took a limited estate in the property inherited by her.
The heirs of the last full "owner, who would be entitled to succeed to the estate of such owner on the death of a widow or other limited heir, if they be then living, were called "reversioners' ............The reason why such a suit (suit by a reversioner) was allowed was that the suit was in a representative capacity and on behalf of all the reversioners, and the object of the suit was that the corpus of the estate should pass unimpaired to those entitled to the reversion. But there has been a revolutionary change in law in this respect because of Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of 1958).
6. Under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, which finds place in Chap. VI and is headed as "of Declaratory Decrees", "Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying.........." In the present case, the plaintiff, who had brought the suit as a reversioner was entitled to do so at the time when the suit was brought, because the suit was brought before the present Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into force. At that time, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of his title as a reversioner because he fulfilled the legal character of being a reversioner.