Rikhdeo Tiwari v. Sukhdeo Tiwari

Ashworth and Kendall, JJ.:— After stating the facts as above, thus continued:—

In this second appeal we are asked to hold that the lower courts were wrong in deciding in favour of accretion of title to Musammat Naulasi by reason of twelve years' adverse possession. We are referred to the Privy Council decision in Lajwanti v. Safa Chand as authority for the view that a widow getting possession of property, which could have come to her husband lawfully in his lifetime as reversioner or heir, must be deemed to limit her claim, to that of a Hindu widow. We would distinguish this decision, as it has previously been distinguished, on the ground that in the Privy Council case, at the time when the widow entered into possession, she was entitled to the property as widow and it was only subsequently that the birth of a posthumous son made her liable to dispossession. In the present case Musammat Naulasi was not entitled under any view to a Hindu widow's possession at the time when she obtained entry. The Privy Council decision has been distinguished in the same way in other cases. We would refer to Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal and Kali Charan v. Piari.

It has been urged that as a matter of fact there is evidence which will justify it being held that the widow limited her claim to a widow's estate. The evidence relied upon is an entry in the khewat showing that her name was associated with that of her daughter and her daughter's sons (exclusive of the present plaintiff). The lower appellate court found that this evidence did not apply to the property in suit or property left by Sheo Tiwari. It is quite conceivable that this entry was with reference to property left by her husband Sita Ram. We are told that he left some such property.

For the above reasons we hold that the lower courts were right in holding that Musammat Naulasi acquired an absolute title in the property by adverse possession and that this absolute title was acquired not only against the reversioners, of Sheo Tiwari's estate but as against any reversioner to her husband Sita Rani's estate.

We dismiss this appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed.