- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rameshwar v. Hardas And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This special appeal arises from a suit filed for a declaration that a sale deed dated 1-8-1927 would be void and inoperative after the death of Smt. Kashi Bai, the executant of that deed.
Two brothers, Parmanand and Bindraban, are central to the facts. Bindraban owned the disputed house and on his death the house devolved on his widow, Smt. Gaura Bai, as a limited owner. On 28-1-1926 Smt. Gaura Bai purportedly gifted the house to her daughter-in-law, Smt. Kashi Bai. Parmanand's sons (respondents 1–3) challenged the validity of that gift. On 1-8-1927 Smt. Kashi Bai executed a sale deed of the house for Rs. 1,650/- in favour of Parmanand's three sons (respondents 1–3).
Rameshwar, the son of Smt. Kashi Bai, filed the suit on 23-2-1948 seeking a declaration that the sale deed would be void and inoperative after Smt. Kashi Bai's lifetime on the ground that the sale was neither for the benefit of the estate nor for legal necessity.
At trial, the court held there was no legal necessity for the sale and that the plaintiff, not being a party to the alleged family settlement between Smt. Kashi Bai and the three sons of Parmanand, was not bound by it; the suit was decreed. The vendees' appeal was dismissed. They proceeded to a second appeal to the High Court.
In the second appeal the vendees argued that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had abolished reversioners and therefore the suit had become incompetent on the Act's commencement, relying on Hanuman Prasad v. Mst. Indrawati (AIR 1958 All 304). The learned Single Judge accepted that plea, set aside the trial decree and dismissed the suit. Leave to appeal having been granted, the plaintiff (decree-holder) filed this special appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a suit by a reversioner challenging the validity of an alienation made by a limited female owner remains maintainable after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- Whether the view in Hanuman Prasad v. Mst. Indrawati (AIR 1958 All 304) — that reversioners have been extinguished by the Hindu Succession Act — remains good law in light of subsequent authorities.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Dr. N. P. Asthana, for the plaintiff-appellant, argued that the view taken in Hanuman Prasad (AIR 1958 All 304) no longer holds the field.
- The appellant relied on a subsequent decision of the Court, Nanhey Lal v. Banwari (1963 All LJ 723), to support the proposition that suits by reversioners are maintainable even after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Respondents' (Vendees') Arguments
- The respondents urged that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, effectively abolished reversioners and therefore rendered the present suit incompetent on the commencement of the Act.
- In support they relied upon Hanuman Prasad v. Mst. Indrawati (AIR 1958 All 304) and the reasoning therein that reversioners "have completely disappeared" by virtue of the Act (particularly reliance on Section 15 of the Act as interpreted in that decision).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hanuman Prasad v. Mst. Indrawati, AIR 1958 All 304 | Held that reversioners have completely disappeared by virtue of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act; customary law of succession abrogated and reversioners no longer exist. | The Single Judge relied on this case to dismiss the suit as incompetent. The present Court analyzed and ultimately disagreed with the sweeping proposition in Hanuman Prasad, identifying weaknesses and subsequent contrary authorities. |
| Nanhey Lal v. Banwari, 1963 All LJ 723 | Decision relied upon to support the proposition that suits by reversioners remain competent after the Hindu Succession Act. | The appellant relied on this later decision. The Court noted that a Bench of the Court in 1963 resiled from the view taken in Hanuman Prasad and that Nanhey Lal supports maintainability. |
| Kotturuswami v. Veerawa, AIR 1959 SC 577 | Interpreted the word "possessed" in Section 14 as used in a broad sense meaning the state of owning or having in one's hand or power. | The Court quoted and applied this interpretation to hold that where a female has made an absolute transfer and put the transferee in possession, she is not "possessed" within Section 14 and therefore does not retain an interest subject to Section 15 succession. |
| Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath, AIR 1957 Pat 480 | One of three High Court decisions relied upon in Hanuman Prasad to support abolition of reversioners by the Act. | The Court observed this Patna decision was subsequently overruled by a Full Bench (Harak Singh v. Kailash Singh, AIR 1958 Pat 581 (FB)) and therefore cannot support Hanuman Prasad's broad conclusion. |
| Dhiraj Kunwar v. Lakshman Singh, AIR 1957 Madh Pra 38 | One of the High Court authorities cited in Hanuman Prasad. | The Court noted that this Madhya Pradesh decision was overruled by a Full Bench (Mt. Lukai v. Niranjan, AIR 1958 Madh-Pra 160 (FB)), undermining reliance upon it for Hanuman Prasad's proposition. |
| Laxmi Debi v. Surendra Kumar, AIR 1957 Orissa 1 | One of the authorities relied upon in Hanuman Prasad. | The Court found this Orissa decision distinguishable on its facts (it was not a case in which a reversioner challenged validity of a transfer by a Hindu female) and therefore of limited applicability to Hanuman Prasad's ratio. |
| Harak Singh v. Kailash Singh, AIR 1958 Pat 581 (Full Bench) | Full Bench decision of Patna High Court that overruled earlier Patna decision (Ram Ayodhya Missir). | The Court cited this Full Bench as having overruled an earlier authority relied upon in Hanuman Prasad; it further observed that Harak Singh has been consistently followed in the Patna High Court. |
| Ram Gulam v. Palakdhari Singh, AIR 1961 Pat 60 | Subsequent Patna authority following Harak Singh (FB). | Cited to show consistent application of the Full Bench view overruling the earlier Patna case relied on in Hanuman Prasad. |
| Renuka Bala v. Aswini Kumar, AIR 1961 Pat 498 | Patna High Court authority following Harak Singh (FB). | Cited as part of a line of cases in Patna following the Full Bench overruling. |
| Tulsi Ahir v. Mt. Sonia, AIR 1962 Pat 296 | Patna High Court authority following the Full Bench. | Listed among decisions showing consistent Patna practice contrary to earlier single-judge authority relied upon in Hanuman Prasad. |
| Sheopujan v. Ramsewak, AIR 1963 Pat 330 | Another Patna decision following the Full Bench view. | Cited as further affirmation of the Full Bench position in Patna. |
| Gobardhan v. Hariram, AIR 1963 Pat 335 | Patna High Court authority in the same line. | Cited to demonstrate the consistent application of the Full Bench ruling. |
| Nathuni Missir v. Mt. Ratna Kuer, AIR 1963 Pat 337 | Patna High Court authority following the Full Bench precedent. | Cited as part of the subsequent Patna decisions rejecting the earlier single-judge view. |
| Mt. Lukai v. Niranjan, AIR 1958 Madh-Pra 160 (Full Bench) | Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court that overruled earlier Madhya Pradesh decision relied upon in Hanuman Prasad. | The Court relied on this Full Bench to show that the earlier Madhya Pradesh authority cited in Hanuman Prasad was no longer good law. |
| Mst. Janku v. Kisan, AIR 1959 Madh-Pra 1 | Subsequent Madhya Pradesh authority following the Full Bench in Mt. Lukai. | Cited to show continued application of the Full Bench view in Madhya Pradesh. |
| Sansir Patelin v. Satyabati Naikani, AIR 1958 Orissa 75 | Orissa High Court held the conception of a reversioner remains in respect of properties where the widow does not get the right of a full owner under Section 14; reversioner's suit for declaration is maintainable. | Cited as supporting the proposition that reversioners' suits remain maintainable in certain situations despite the Hindu Succession Act. |
| Gangadhar Charan v. Saraswati Bewa, AIR 1962 Orissa 190 | Orissa High Court decision following Sansir Patelin. | Cited as subsequent Orissa authority adopting the view that reversioner's suit is maintainable. |
| Ganesh Mahanta v. Sukria Bewa, AIR 1963 Orissa 167 | Another Orissa decision following the view in Sansir Patelin. | Cited as reinforcing Orissa High Court practice on maintainability. |
| Gostha Behari v. Haridas Samanta, AIR 1957 Cal 557 | Calcutta High Court authority accepting the view that reversioners' suits are maintainable. | Cited as an example of High Courts taking the view that such suits remain maintainable after the Act. |
| Marudakkal v. Arumugha, AIR 1958 Mad 255 | Madras High Court authority in support of maintainability. | Cited as one of the High Courts that accepted maintainability of reversioner suits. |
| Bapu Rao Dhondiba v. Neroji Ramji, AIR 1961 Bom 300 | Bombay High Court decision accepting that such suits are maintainable. | Cited as a High Court which dissented from Hanuman Prasad and accepted maintainability. |
| Ramchandra v. Sukhram, AIR 1958 Bom 244 | Bombay authority cited for similar proposition. | Included among Bombay High Court cases supporting maintainability. |
| Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram, AIR 1960 Punj 530 (Full Bench) | Punjab Full Bench taking the view that such suits are maintainable. | Cited as one of the High Courts dissenting from Hanuman Prasad. |
| Somiah v. Rattamma, AIR 1959 Andh-Pra 244 | Andhra Pradesh decision accepting maintainability. | Listed among the High Courts holding the suit maintainable. |
| Devi Singh v. Mt. Phulma, AIR 1961 Him-Pra 10 | Himachal Pradesh authority in the same line. | Cited as another High Court following the view of maintainability. |
| Smt. Sumitra v. Smt. Maharaju, AIR 1963 Him-Pra 21 | Himachal Pradesh decision cited similarly. | Cited to demonstrate subsequent Himachal practice supporting maintainability. |
| Thailambal Ammal v. Kesavan Nair, AIR 1957 Kerala 86 | Kerala High Court authority cited as accepting the maintainability of reversioner suits. | Cited among High Court decisions adopting the view that such suits remain competent after the Act. |
| Brahmadeo Singh v. Deomani Missir, Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1960 (Dated 15-10-1962, Supreme Court) (unreported) | Supreme Court (unreported) effectively held that a suit by reversioners was maintainable and remitted the case to the Patna High Court for rehearing on merits. | The Court considered the Supreme Court's disposition as effectively holding that the suit was maintainable after the Hindu Succession Act; this authority was used to support the view that Hanuman Prasad's conclusion was incorrect. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court engaged in a step-by-step analysis addressing the contention that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 abolished reversioners and thereby rendered reversioners' suits incompetent.
- The Court began by examining the scope of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, observing that Section 15 prescribes a table of succession "in respect of the property of a female Hindu dying intestate" and therefore applies only to property which the female held at the time of her death (para 7).
- The Court reasoned that where a Hindu female had no interest in the property at the date of her death (for example, because she made an absolute transfer and the transferee was put in possession), succession under Section 15 does not arise and Shastric Hindu law would continue to govern such property (para 7).
- Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Kotturuswami v. Veerawa (AIR 1959 SC 577), the Court accepted that the word "possessed" in Section 14 is used broadly to mean the state of owning or having in one's hand or power (para 8). The Court noted that High Courts had uniformly held that when a Hindu female makes an absolute transfer and puts the transferee in possession, she is not "possessed" within the meaning of Section 14 (para 9).
- From the foregoing, the Court concluded that Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act will not govern succession to property in which the female retained no interest at death, and in such situations the rules of Shastric Hindu law (including the conception of reversioners and their right to challenge alienations by a female limited owner) continue to apply even after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act (para 9).
- The Court examined the authorities relied upon in Hanuman Prasad and found that two of the three High Court decisions on which that case depended had been overruled by Full Benches in their respective High Courts (Patna and Madhya Pradesh), while the third Orissa case was distinguishable on its facts (paras 10–12). This undermined the weight of Hanuman Prasad's sweeping conclusion.
- The Court surveyed numerous High Court decisions (Orissa, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, etc.) which had held such suits maintainable or had dissented from the view in Hanuman Prasad (paras 13–18). It also relied on the Supreme Court disposition in Brahmadeo Singh v. Deomani Missir (unreported) which remanded a reversioner suit for rehearing — the Court interpreted that as indicating the suit's maintainability after the Act (para 16).
- On the overall state of authorities, the Court concluded that the correct view is that a suit by a reversioner challenging an alienation by a limited female owner is maintainable even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (para 20).
- The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had dismissed the suit solely on the ground of non-maintainability and had not decided the other questions raised in the second appeal (para 18). Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's judgment and remanded the matter for hearing on the merits (para 19).
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The Court ALLOWED the special appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter with directions that the second appeal be restored to its original number and heard on its merits in accordance with law (para 19).
Implications as expressly stated in the opinion:
- The Court held that, on the state of authorities, the correct view appears to be that a suit by a reversioner challenging an alienation made by a limited female owner is maintainable even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (para 20).
- The Single Judge's dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-maintainability was set aside; the case is remanded for adjudication on the merits (para 19). The Court expressly noted that the Single Judge did not decide other substantive questions raised in the second appeal (para 18).
- The parties to this special appeal were directed to bear their own costs of the special appeal; costs heretofore shall abide the result (para 19).
Note: This summary is confined to and derived exclusively from the material contained in the provided opinion. No information not present in the opinion has been added.
1. This special appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 1-8-1927 would be void and inoperative after the death of Smt. Kashi Bai, the executant thereof.
2. Parmanand and Bindraban were two brothers. Bindraban was the owner of the house in dispute. He died and on his death the house in dispute devolved on his widow Smt. Gaura Bai as a limited owner. On 28-1-1926 Smt. Gaura Bai by a deed, gifted the house to her daughter-in-law Smt. Kashi Bai. Permanand's sons, who are respondents 1 to 3 here, challenged the validity of the gift. Ultimately on 1-8-1927 Smt. Kashi Bai executed a sale deed of the house in dispute for a sum of Rs. 1,650/- in favour of the three sons of Permanand, viz., respondents 1, 2 and 3.
3. Smt. Kashi Bai's son Rameshwar filed the present suit on 23-2-1948, for a declaration that the aforesaid sale deed would be void and inoperative after the life time of Smt. Kashi Bai, on the allegation that the sale was neither for the benefit of the estate nor for legal necessity.
4. Respondents 1 to 3 contested the suit on various grounds but without success. The trial court held that there was no legal necessity for the sale and that the plaintiff being no party to the alleged family settlement between Smt. Kashi Bai and the three sons of Permanand, the sale was not, binding on him. On these findings the suit was decreed. The appeal filed by the vendees was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the vendees cams up to the High Court in second appeal. In the second appeal it was urged that the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956, has in effect abolished reversioners altogether, and as such on the commencement of the said, Act, the instant suit became incompetent and the decree passed therein was liable to be set aside. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon a Division Bench case of our Court, viz., Hanuman Prasad v. Mst. Indrawati, AIR 1958 All 304. The learned Single Judge accepted this plea and setting aside the decree, dismissed the suit. Leave to appeal having been granted by the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff has come up in special appeal.
5. Dr. N. P. Asthana, appearing for the plaintiff, appellant, has urged that the view taken in the case of Hanuman Prasad, AIR 1958 All 304 (supra) no longer holds the field. He has placed reliance on a subsequent decision of our Court reported in Nanhey Lal v. Banwari, 1963 All LJ 723.
6. In the case of Hanuman Prasad, AIR 1958 All 304 a Bench of this Court held:-
".....reversioners have completely disappeared by virtue of the provisions of section 15. The customary law of succession has been completely abrogated by the Act which exhaustively amends and codifies the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. Even the heirs of that husband referred to in Section 15 are the heirs mentioned in Section 8 and not the heirs under the customary law. The next reversioner who was the creation of the customary law, is no longer in the picture.
It makes no difference whatsoever if by accident the heir of the widow is the same person who would have inherited the property on her death as the next reversioner. Since there will be no reversioners after the passing of the Act, nobody can get a decree as a reversioner now. Even these persons who could have obtained a decree before the passing of the Act, that an alienation made before the passing of the Act was invalid cannot now get a declaration to that effect because they have lost the status by virtue of which they could get it."
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.
7. The view that reversioners have been totally abolished by the Hindu Succession Act does not appear to be sound. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down a table of succession in respect of "the property of a female Hindu dying intestate." This section would apply to such property alone which a Hindu female held at the time of her death. In property in which a Hindu female has no interest whatsoever at the date of her death, no succession will open and nothing will devolve on her heirs. The Shastric Hindu Law would continue to govern the fate of such property. It is incorrect to say that the Shastric Hindu Law has been repealed or abrogated in its entirety. Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act says that "any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law ..... shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act." In respect of matters for which the Act makes no provision, it is apparent, that the rules of Shastric Hindu Law would continue to prevail.
8. In Kotturuswami v. Veerawa, AIR 1959 SC 577 the Supreme Court has held that
"the word 'possessed' in Section 14 is used in a broad sense and in the context means the state of owning or having in one's hand or power."
9. Same view was taken in Hanuman Prasad's case, AIR 1958 All 304 and the same view has been expressed practically by all the High Courts in the country. All the High Courts are further agreed that when a Hindu female makes an absolute transfer, i.e., by sale or a gift, and puts the transferee in possession, she is not "possessed" of any property within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu. Succession Act. It is, thus, clear that in such property the Hindu female will not retain any interest at the date of her death. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act will hence, not govern the succession to such property. There is no other provision of the Hindu Succession Act which may apply in such a situation. Consequently, the rules of Shastric Hindu law will be applicable. The reversioners who are a creation of the Shastric Hindu Law will continue to remain in the picture with reference to such property, and will take the property on death of the female. Their right to challenge the validity of an alienation by a Hindu female, recognised by the Shastric Hindu Law will continue, even after the Hindu Succession Act.
10. In Hanuman Prasad's case, AIR 1958 All 304 reliance was placed upon three cases. We find that two of them have been subsequently overruled by larger Benches of those High Courts. The case of (S) AIR 1957 Pat 480 was overruled by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court reported in Harak Singh v. Kailash Singh, AIR 1958 Pat 581 (FB). This Full Bench of the Patna High Court has been consistently followed in that High Court, Ram Gulam v. Palakdhari Singh, AIR 1961 Pat 60; Renuka Bala v. Aswini Kumar, AIR 1961 Pat 498; Tulsi Ahir v. Mt. Sonia, AIR 1962 Pat 296; Sheopujan v. Ramsewak, AIR 1963 Pat 330; Gobardhan v. Hariram, AIR 1963 Pat 335 and Nathuni Missir v. Mt. Ratna Kuer, AIR 1963 Pat 337.
11. The case of (S) AIR 1957 Madh-Pra 33, was also overruled by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Mt. Lukai v. Niranjan, AIR 1958 Madh-Pra 160 (FB). This Full Bench has also been followed by that High Court in a subsequent case Mst. Janku v. Kisan, AIR 1959 Madh-Pra 1.
12. The third case, viz., (S) AIR 1957 Orissa 1 of the Orissa High Court was not a case In which a reversioner challenged the validity of any transfer made by a Hindu female. The plaintiffs in that case claimed a declaration that they were the reversioners and that the adoption of defendant No. 1 was invalid. The case was, therefore, distinguishable on facts.
13. The Orissa High Court, in Sansir Patelin v. Satyabati Naikani, AIR 1958 Orissa 75 has held that the conception of a reversioner still remains in respect of the properties In which the widow does not get the right of a full owner by virtue of Section 14 of the Act and that the reversioner's suit for declaration was maintainable. The same view has been followed by the Orissa High Court in subsequent cases of Gangadhar Charan v. Saraswati Bewa, AIR 1962 Orissa 190 and Ganesh Mahanta v. Sukria Bewa, AIR 1963 Orissa 167.
14. The view that such a suit is maintainable has been accepted by the High Courts of Calcutta, Gostha Behari v. Haridas Samanta, (S) AIR 1957 Cal 557, Madras, Marudakkal v. Arumugha, AIR 1958 Mad 255; Bombay, Bapu Rao Dhondiba v. Neroji Ramji, AIR 1961 Bom 300; Ramchandra v. Sukhram, AIR 1958 Bom 244, Punjab, Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram AIR 1960 Punj 530 (FB) Andhra-Pra., Somiah v. Rattamma, AIR 1959 Andh-Pra 244, Himachal Pradesh, Devi Singh v. Mt. Phulma, AIR 1961 Him-Pra 10; Smt. Sumitra v. Smt. Maharaju, AIR 1963 Him-Pra 21 and Kerala, Thailambal Ammal v. Kesavan Nair, AIR 1957 Kerala 86.
15. The case of Hanuman Prasad, AIR 1958 All 304 has been considered and dissented by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 Andh-Pra 244, Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 Madh-Pra 1; Punjab, AIR 1960 Punj 530 (FB), Bombay, AIR 1961 Bom 300 and Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1961 Him-Pra 10.
16. Relying on art unreported Judgment of Supreme Court in Brahmadeo Singh v. Deomani Missir, Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1960, D/- 15-10-1962 (SC) a Bench of our Court has, in the case of 1963 All LJ 723 resiled from the view taken in Hanuman Prasad's case AIR 1958 All 304. It has held that such a suit is still competent We have perused the blue print of the Supreme Court decision in Brahma Deo Singh's case, Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1960, D/- 15-10-1962 (SC). In that case a suit for declaration was filed by the reversioners challenging the validity of an alienation made by a limited owner. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal by the vendees the Patna High Court held that on the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act the suit by the reversioners became incompetent. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the view taken by the Patna High Court was incorrect Setting aside the decree of the Patna High Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Patna High Court for rehearing on the merits. From this it is clear that the Supreme Court did in effect hold that the suit was maintainable even after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act.
17. On the state of authorities, the correct view appears to be that such a suit is maintainable even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.
18. The learned Single Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable. He did not decide the other questions raised in the second appeal.
19. We allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter with the direction that the second appeal will be restored to its original number and heard on its merits in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs of this special appeal. Costs heretofore shall abide the result.
Alert