Reversionary estate and Hindu succession: ancestral property devolves under the Act, with appellate relief available for non-appealing heirs.

A declaratory decree against an alienation of ancestral property did not nullify the transfer for all purposes; it preserved the reversion so the property returned to the alienor's estate on his death. Because succession opened after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, the estate devolved under that Act, entitling the widow and daughters to inherit with the sons. The appellate court could also mould relief under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC in favour of heirs who had not filed an appeal or cross-objections, where complete justice required adjustment of the estate among all entitled parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declaratory decree obtained by a reversioner restored the alienated ancestral property to the alienor's estate so that, on the death of the alienor after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, the widow and daughters could inherit along with the sons; and (ii) whether the appellate court could grant relief to the widow and daughters though they had not filed an appeal or cross-objections.

Issue (i): Whether the declaratory decree obtained by a reversioner restored the alienated ancestral property to the alienor's estate so that, on the death of the alienor after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, the widow and daughters could inherit along with the sons.

Analysis: The declaratory decree did not render the alienation a nullity for all purposes, but only declared that the alienation would not bind beyond the alienor's lifetime and that the property would revert to his estate on his death. Once succession opened after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the estate had to devolve according to that Act. The earlier incapacity of female heirs under custom to contest the alienation did not prevent them from inheriting when succession actually opened after the statute came into force.

Conclusion: The alienated property reverted to the alienor's estate on his death, and the widow and daughters were entitled to inherit along with the sons under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court could grant relief to the widow and daughters though they had not filed an appeal or cross-objections.

Analysis: The suit was one for possession of the entire property, and the primary issue was whether the alienee had any subsisting interest after the alienor's death. Once that question was answered against the alienee, the appellate court had power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to mould the decree so as to adjust the rights of all persons entitled to the estate. The rule exists to prevent injustice and permits relief even in favour of parties who have not appealed or objected where the justice of the case so requires.

Conclusion: The appellate court could and should have granted relief to the widow and daughters as well.

Final Conclusion: The decree was altered so that possession of the suit lands was awarded to all the heirs, with the sons taking one-half and the widow and daughters taking the other half, together with mesne profits and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaratory decree against an alienation of ancestral property preserves the reversionary estate, and when succession opens after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance is governed by that Act; in such a case, an appellate court may invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant complete relief to all entitled heirs, including non-appealing parties.

---