Representative suits against widow's alienation bind reversioners, and the Agra Tenancy Act limitation did not cover a grove.
A presumptive reversioner's representative suit challenging a widow's unauthorised alienation binds the reversionary estate when the decree finally holds the transfer not binding after the widow's death. That decree also binds successors in interest of the alienee and cannot be reopened by them once final. The special six-month limitation under Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act applies only to land held for agricultural purposes and does not extend to a grove. The appeal therefore failed, and the decree in favour of the reversionary heirs was sustained.
Issues: (i) whether a decree obtained by a presumptive reversioner challenging a widow's alienation was binding on the ultimate reversionary heirs and on the appellant as successor in interest of the alienee; (ii) whether a grove was covered by Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act so as to attract the six-month limitation period.
Issue (i): whether a decree obtained by a presumptive reversioner challenging a widow's alienation was binding on the ultimate reversionary heirs and on the appellant as successor in interest of the alienee.
Analysis: A suit brought by a presumptive reversioner to protect the estate from a widow's unauthorised alienation is maintained in a representative capacity for the benefit of the entire reversionary body. A decree in such a suit, when it finally determines that the alienation is not binding on the estate after the widow's death, binds those who succeed to the position of the alienee and also enures to the benefit of the ultimate reversioners when the succession opens. The appellant, as successor in interest of the mortgagee-purchaser, could not reopen the same issue after the earlier decree had become final.
Conclusion: The decree was conclusive and binding against the appellant, and the respondents, as reversionary heirs, were entitled to possession of the property.
Issue (ii): whether a grove was covered by Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act so as to attract the six-month limitation period.
Analysis: The statutory provision relied upon was confined to land held for agricultural purposes. A grove, by its nature, could not be treated as such land for the purpose of applying the special limitation period in the Act.
Conclusion: Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act did not apply to the grove, and the appellant's limitation defence failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the decree in favour of the respondents was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A decree obtained by a presumptive reversioner in a representative suit challenging a widow's alienation is binding on the reversionary estate and its successors, and a special limitation provision confined to agricultural land cannot be extended to a grove.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
