Bai Kamala Wd/O. Chokshiwala Mangaldas ... vs Ochhavlal Chhaganlal And Ors. on 10 April, 1962
The Learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon R.A. Missir v. Raghunath, where it was observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.85 seconds)Rameshwar vs Hardas And Ors. on 14 November, 1963
For this view the Bench drew support from three cases: one each of Patna, Madhya Pradesh and Qrissa High Courts: viz., (1) Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 480, (2) Dhiraj Kunwar v. Lakshman Singh, AIR 1957 Madh Pra 38 and (3) Laxmi Debi v. Surendra Kumar, (S) AIR 1957 Orissa 1.
Sasadhar Chandra Day And Ors. vs Sm. Tara Sundari Dasi And Ors. on 8 February, 1962
Four decisions of other High Courts were also cited, one each of Patna and Kerala and two of Andhra, reported in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, (S) ; Pathumma Beebi v. Krishnan Asari, ; Venkamma v. Venkatareddi, and Annapurnamma v. Bhima, . None of these are well-considered decisions on the point under consideration. The view taken by me and stated above is consistent with the view expressed in other decisions of this Court and noticed before. In my judgment, the Hindu female acquires absolute title in properties allotted to her under a final decree passed prior to the Hindu Succession Act in a partition suit wherein she was declared to have restricted interest in the property. In the instant case, Prosadmoni became absolutely entitled to the properties allotted to her in the final decree passed in Suit No. 1970 of 1933 and on her death in 1959, the properties devolved on defendant No. 1 Tarasundari as her only heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. No other party has any interest in the estate.
Nathuni Missir vs Mosammat Ratna Kuer And Ors. on 21 February, 1963
8. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that even if the case of the contesting defendants that defendants 2 and 3 were the daughter and daughter's son respectively of Raghu Missir was correct, the suit of the plaintiffs for a declaration about the invalidity of the deed of surrender was maintainable, inasmuch as the nearest reversioners or Raghu Missir had, by their own conduct, precluded themselves from instituting a suit for challenging the validity or the deed of surrender. He contended that even accepting the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in this respect, the plaintiffs, although remote reversioners, had a cause of action for the present suit and they were entitled to the relief sought for. He urged that the view taken by the trial Judge based on the decision in the case of Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 480 with regard to the effect of Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not correct in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Harak Singh v. Kailash Singh, AIR 1958 Pat 581 (FB). In the suit, which came before the Full Bench, the plaintiffs had asked for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 30-3-1949, executed by defendant No. 2, Musammat Deosunder Kuer, widow or Rambarat Singh, in favour of defendant No. 1, Kailash Singh, was not valid beyond the lifetime of the widow and was not binding upon the plaintiffs (of that suit), who were the next reversioners. The plaintiffs there had claimed to be the next reversioners to the estate of Rambarat Singh and alleged that defendant No. 1, in whose favour the gift was made, was the sister's son of Deosunder Kuer.
Sansir Patelin And Anr. vs Satyabati Naikani And Anr. on 19 November, 1957
14. Mr. Misra strongly relies upon a decision of the Patna High Court reported in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 480 (F), the decision being of Ramaswami C. J., and Raj Kishore Prasad J. This decision supports to a great extent the contention of Mr. Misra. Their Lordships have analysed the position of a reversioner recognised in Hindu Law and observed that it was not a vested interest but was a spes successionis; a reversionary heir was, however recognised by Courts of law as having a right to demand that the estate be kept free from danger during its enjoyment by the widow or other limited heir; a reversionary heir may sue to restrain a widow or other limited heir from committing waste or injuring the property. Their Lordships have further discussed the position that a reversionary heir may also bring a representative suit for a declaration that an alienation by a widow is not binding on the reversioner. After this analysis their Lordships observed:
Mt. Janki Kuer And Ors. vs Chhathu Prasad And Ors. on 23 July, 1957
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.
Lateshwar Jha And Ors. vs Mt. Uma Ojhain And Ors. on 28 March, 1958
19. The above view gets support from a Bench decision of this Court in Ram Ayudhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, AIR 1957 Pat 480 (A), to which I was also a party. It was held therein that Section 14 is made expressly retrospective and the statute declares that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Ramsewak Ojha And Ors. vs Sheopujan Pandey on 12 May, 1958
Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, has contended that the decision in First Appeal No. 14 of 1950: (AIR 1958 Pat 581) (FB) is not material in so far as the present appeal is concerned and, in the next place, he has urged that the opinion expressed by this Court in the other Division Bench decisions should be held to be correct. As to the view adopted by the Division Bench in First Appeal No. 114 of 1950: (AIR 1958 Pat 581) (FB) it may be stated that Sinha J. reconsidered his own opinion expressed in a previous judgment and concluded that since the case was not argued before him in the light of the correct meaning of the word "possessed", he had followed a previous decision of this Court in the case of Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, 1956 BLJR 734: ( (S) AIR 1957 Pat 480). Having considered the matter afresh, however, he felt that the word "possessed" referred to the possession of the properly by the widow at the time the Act came into force and could not possibly refer to the case of a widow, who, though she might be alive at the date of the enforcement of the Act had already absolutely transferred the property in question by way of sale or gift before the law was enacted and before it came into force.
Harak Singh vs Kailash Singh And Anr. on 1 July, 1958
In support of this argument Counsel on behalf of the respondents relied upon the decisions of this Court in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, 1956 BLJR 734 : ((S) AIR 1957 Pat 480) (A), Mt Janki Kuer v. Chhathu Prasad, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 674 (B) and Ramsaroop Singh v. Hiralall Singh, 1958 Pat LR 71: (AIR 1958 Pat 319) (C).
Ramgobind Singh And Ors. vs Ramranbijai Singh And Ors. on 3 September, 1957
Mr. Sinha also cited the case of Ram Ayodhya v. Raghunath Missir 1956 Pat LR 486 : ( (S) AIR 1957 Pat 480) (K), where at the stage of Letters Patent Appeal effect was given to the new legislation contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and their Lordships said that it was manifest that Section 14 was made expressly retrospective, and, therefore, there is no surprise that their Lordships took into consideration the subsequent legislation.