1921 (7) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules widow's sale invalid, reversioner's suit binding. Transfer not for necessity. Civil Court action valid.

Sheo Pargash Ojha and Ors. Versus Kesho Prasad Singh

The court held that a suit by a reversioner to set aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow is brought in a representative capacity, binding on all ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a suit by a reversioner to set aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow is brought in a representative capacity and binding on all reversioners.2. Whether the sale of the widow's interest at the instance of Kishan Prasad was valid beyond her lifetime.3. Whether Section 79 of the Tenancy Act applies to the grove in dispute.4. Whether the transfer by the widow was for legal necessity and binding on the estate.5. Whether the suit for possession of the grove should have been brought in the Revenue Court and was barred by limitation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Representative Capacity of Reversioner's Suit:The court held that a suit by a reversioner to set aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow is brought in a representative capacity, representing the entire body of reversioners for the protection of the estate. The decree in such a suit is binding not only between the reversioner who brought the suit and the transferee but also between the whole body of reversioners and the transferee or his representative. This principle is supported by Explanation VI of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment referenced the Privy Council's recent pronouncements and the Full Bench case of Bhagwanta v. Sukhi, emphasizing that the reversioner who sues represents the others.2. Validity of Sale Beyond Widow's Lifetime:The court inclined to hold that the sale at the instance of Kishan Prasad was a sale of the widow's rights and interests as declared in the reversioners' suit decreed before the sale. Since it was held that the mortgage by the widow could not enure beyond her life, the mortgagee caused only the life-interest of the widow to be sold. Thus, the interests acquired by the purchaser at the auction sale ended with the widow's death, and the appellant no longer had any right in the property.3. Application of Section 79 of the Tenancy Act:The court found it impossible to hold that Section 79 of the Tenancy Act applied to the grove in dispute. The grove was not land held for agricultural purposes, and hence, the section could not apply. The grove-holder was delivering half the produce as rent, and the consensus of authority was that land held for the purposes of a grove is not land held for agricultural purposes.4. Legal Necessity of Widow's Transfer:The court dismissed the defendants' plea that the transfer by the widow was for legal necessity and binding on the estate. The former decision and decree obtained by Dhanai Ojha against the widow and Kishan Prasad, which held that the transfer was not binding on the estate after the widow's death, was binding on the parties. The court emphasized that the reversioner's suit is brought in a representative capacity, and the decision is binding on all reversioners.5. Suit for Possession of the Grove in Revenue Court and Limitation:The court held that the suit for possession of the grove was rightly brought in the Civil Court and was within the ordinary period of 12 years' limitation. The grove was not a holding within the meaning of the Tenancy Act, and Section 79 could not apply. The appellant's plea that the suit should have been brought in the Revenue Court and was barred by limitation was dismissed.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's decree for possession of the grove and the share in mauza Pachrokia. The court emphasized the representative nature of the reversioner's suit and the binding effect of the former decision on all reversioners. The legal necessity of the widow's transfer and the applicability of Section 79 of the Tenancy Act were also addressed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.