Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. The plaintiffs' case is that the deed oi gift was invalid and relying upon that allegation and the ruling of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referred to above, it was argued on behalf of the defendants that their possession should be held to be permissive on behalf of Mt. Phulma and the plaintiffs' suit was liable to be thrown out on their own allegation.

26. The facts of the aforesaid Supreme Court case were as below:--A the last male holder died in 1920. He had by his will authorized his wife B to adopt a son and in compliance therewith B adopted C in 1942. D alleging himself to be the nearest reversioner of A filed a suit for declaration that C's adoption was invalid and not binding upon him. The suit was dismissed and the decision was affirmed by the High Court. D appealed to the Supreme Court when a preliminary objection was raised in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which had come into force. It was held that if the adoption was invalid the possession of C over the property which prior to adoption was in possession of A would be deemed to be permissive. In the last para of the judgment, their Lordships are reported! to have observed as below :

"In our opinion the appellants' suit was not maintainable having regard to the provisions of section 14 of the Act, even if it be assumed that there was no valid adoption of the second defendant."

27. It is thus manifest that the appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief even if it be assumed that the adoption was invalid. There is a vital difference between an adoption made by a Hindu female and a transfer by sale or gift by her. If an adoption is held to be invalid, it does not exist in the eye of law whereas a sale or a gift If not challenged by the Hindu female herself, enures during her life time and it is only after her death that the reversioners can recover possession of the property comprised therein.

The aforesaid distinction was clearly brought out in the judgments of Mehar Singh and Gosain, JJ., in the Full Bench case of the Punjab High Court reported in Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram, 1960-62 Pun LR 537: (AIR 1960 Punj 530). Mr. Justice Dulat, the other learned Judge who composed the Full Bench was, however, of the opinion that an invalid gift and an invalid adoption by a Hindu female stand on the same footing. On principle, it is difficult to distinguish between an invalid sale or an invalid gift executed by a Hindu female having limited rights and, if I may say so with respect, the reasoning of Mehar Singh and Gosain, JJ., appears to be more logical.