Suraj Balli Singh v. Tilakdhari Singh

Kulwant Sahay, J.:— (after stating the facts set out above, proceeded as (follows:)— In this second appeal it is contended that, assuming that Hulasbati Kuer took the eight annas of Gobind by adverse posses-session and acquired an absolute estate, such acquisition of an absolute estate must be treated to be an accretion to her husband's estate, because it is contended that as a, widow she could not, by adverse possession, acquire any property for herself, and whatever property she did acquire by adverse possession would be an acquisition to her husband's estate. Reference has in this connection, been made to the decision of the Privy Council in Musammat Lajwanti v. Sofa Chand(1). What was decided in that case was that “the Hindu widow is not a life-renter but has a, widow's estate, that is to say a widow's estate in her deceased husband's estate. If possessing as a widow she possesses adversely to any one as to certain parcels, she does not acquire the parcels as stridhan but she makes them good to her husband's estate.”

Now what their Lordships meant by this passage was that if the widow as representing her husband's estate, and she for certain purposes fully represents her husband's estate, encroaches on certain property in her capacity of a widow and as representing her husband's estate, then the interest that she would, acquire by adverse possession of such parcel of land would be an accretion to her husband's estate. Their Lordships did not say that the widow could, not under any circumstance acquire any property for herself while holding her husband's estate. The decision of the Privy Council in Musammat Lajwanti v. Sofa Chand, above cited was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. Prayag Narayan, and their Lordships there held that when a Hindu widow is in possession of any property by adverse possession, then the property would become her stridhan, and it was only if the property is held in possession by a Hindu widow claiming as the widow of her deceased husband, then the property becomes an accretion to her husband's estate. It is clear, therefore, that, unless it is shown that she took adverse possession of Gobind's share as representing her husband's estate, the interest she acquired by adverse-possession would be her stridhan and would not be an accretion to her husband's estate. There is absolutely nothing to show that she took adverse possession of Gobind's share as representing her husband's estate. The learned Subordinate Judge was clearly right in holding that at the date of the conveyance to the defendants first party the widow had an absolute interest in an eight annas share and the sale of 1 anna 15 gundas to the defendants first party was a valid sale.

This appeal is dismissed with costs.

Macpherson, J.:— I agree.

S.A.K

Appeal dismissed.