Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Their Lordships are of opinion that although a suit of this nature may be brought by a contingent reversionary heir, yet that, as a general rule, it must be brought by the presumptive reversionary heir, that is to say, by the person, who would succeed if the widow were to die at that moment. They are also of opinion that such a suit may be brought by a more distant reversioner if those nearer in succession are in collusion with the widow, or have precluded themselves from interfering. They consider that the rule laid down in 'Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vital', 10 Bom H C 351 is correct. It cannot be the law that any one who may have a possibility of succeeding on the death of the widow can maintain a suit of the present nature, for, if so, the right to sue would belong to every one in the line of succession, however remote. The right to sue must, in their Lordships opinion, be limited. If the nearest reversionary heir refuses, without sufficient cause, to institute proceedings or if he has precluded himself by his own act or conduct from suing, or has colluded with the widow, or concurred in the act alleged to be wrongful, the next presumable reversioner would be entitled to sue; see 'Kooer Golabsing v. Rao Kurun Singh', 14 MIA 176: (10 Beng LR 1 PC). In such a case, upon a plaint stating the circumstances under which the more distant reversionary heir claims to sue, the Ct. must exercise a judicial discretion in determining whether the remote reversioner is entitled to sue, & would probably require the nearer reversioner to be made a party to the suit."