Representative reversionary suits bind the transferee on legal necessity, while pure grove land falls outside Section 79 tenancy protection.

A bona fide declaratory suit by a presumptive reversioner challenging a Hindu widow's alienation is treated as a representative suit for the protection of the reversionary estate. A fully contested decree in such litigation binds the widow, the alienee and the entire reversionary body under Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC, so the transferee cannot later reopen legal necessity against the actual reversioner. The article also states that Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act applies only to a tenant unlawfully ejected from agricultural holding; pure grove land is outside that definition, so civil court jurisdiction remains available and the special six-month revenue remedy does not govern.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a declaratory suit by a presumptive reversioner challenging an alienation made by a Hindu widow in possession binds the entire body of reversioners and precludes the transferee from re-agitating the question of legal necessity; (ii) whether a suit for possession of grove land was barred by Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act and maintainable only in the Revenue Court within six months.

Issue (i): Whether a declaratory suit by a presumptive reversioner challenging an alienation made by a Hindu widow in possession binds the entire body of reversioners and precludes the transferee from re-agitating the question of legal necessity.

Analysis: A suit by a presumptive reversioner to set aside an alienation is treated as a representative suit brought for the protection of the reversionary estate. On that footing, the litigation is not merely personal to the individual plaintiff but is in common interest of all reversioners. Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 therefore applies, with the result that persons interested in the common right are deemed to claim under the litigating reversioner for the purposes of res judicata. A fully and genuinely contested decree in such a suit binds the widow, the alienee, and the reversionary body, and the transferee cannot reopen the issue of legal necessity against the actual reversioner after the widow's death.

Conclusion: The prior decree was binding, and the question of legal necessity could not be re-opened; the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit for possession of grove land was barred by Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act and maintainable only in the Revenue Court within six months.

Analysis: Section 79 applies only to a tenant unlawfully ejected from a holding, and a holding is land held or let for agricultural purposes. Pure grove land is not land held for agricultural purposes. The grove in dispute was therefore outside the scope of the Tenancy Act provision, so the civil court had jurisdiction and the ordinary period of limitation applied.

Conclusion: Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act did not apply, and the suit was not barred; the finding was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the principal question of binding effect of the earlier reversionary decree and the tenancy-law objection relating to the grove, and the dismissal with costs stood.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide declaratory suit by a presumptive reversioner challenging a widow's alienation is a representative suit, and a decree therein, if obtained after fair contest, operates as res judicata under Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the transferee and the reversionary body; pure grove land is not agricultural holding for the purpose of Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act.

---