Order
1. The erstwhile Pepsu Government in lieu of meritorious services rendered by late Jangir Singh, Havaldar in Sikh Regiment decided to allot land measuring 89 kanals 5 biswas situated in Village Magha to Smt Bachan Kaur, widow of late Jangir Singh for maintenance during her lifetime. On 1-4-1952, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur in pursuance of the decision of the then Government, allotted the land to Smt Bachan Kaur. The allotment order indicated that Smt Bachan Kaur shall have only life estate in the said land. In pursuance of the said order of allotment, Smt Bachan Kaur came into possession over the said land. It appears that on 10-2-1964, Smt Bachan Kaur executed a registered sale deed in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the said land allotted to her for a consideration of amount of Rs 24,000. It further appears that in pursuance of the said sale deed, Respondents 1 and 2 came into possession over the said land. The said respondents also applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records, which was granted. However, the State of Punjab filed an objection against the said mutation, which was allowed. On appeal before the Financial Commissioner, the order was set aside and the parties were directed to establish their right in the civil court.
2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the State of Punjab instituted a civil suit on 2-9-1974 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Smt Bachan Kaur in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 is illegal and void and the same does not confer any title on these vendees. Respondents 1 and 2 were arrayed as defendants in the said suit along with Smt Bachan Kaur. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a separate written statement, wherein they took the plea that they being the bona fide purchasers of the land for consideration, have acquired title under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court framed several issues and after considering the matter, decreed the suit. The aggrieved respondents preferred an appeal before the first appellate court against the decree of the trial court, which was dismissed. The respondents thereafter preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that since Respondents 1 and 2 were the bona fide purchasers for the consideration, the sale deed executed by Smt Bachan Kaur is not a voidable document. In view of that matter, the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and the decree affirmed by the first appellate court was set aside. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the State of Punjab is in appeal before us.
3. Ms Monika Gusain, learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab urged that the widow having limited right during her lifetime, she could not have transferred the interest in the land beyond her lifetime. Ms Amita Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that the respondents being bona fide purchasers from ostensible owners for a consideration and in good faith, the sale deed is valid under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
4. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the widow, who had only life estate during her lifetime, could sell the interest in the land beyond her lifetime. This matter came up for consideration before this Court in Phool Kuer v. Pem Kuer AIR 1952 SC 207 wherein it was held that where a person who has allowed another to occupy the position of an ostensible owner has a limited estate, the rule of Section 41 applies only during the lifetime of the limited owner and is not available to protect transferees against the claim of the reversioners. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, referred to Sankara Hali and Sankara Institute of Philosophy and Culture v. Kishori Lal Goenka (1996) 7 SCC 55. This case has no application as this case arose out of benami transaction. In Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy (1979) 2 SCC 601, (1979) 2 SCR 424 the father was found to be ostensible owner and in that context, it was held that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply, which is not the case here. The widow can be ostensible owner to the extent that she has a right during her lifetime. She ceased to be an ostensible owner after her death and cannot pass on a better title than what she had. Admittedly, she had a life estate in the property and after her death, the title in the land would revert to the State of Punjab.
5. In view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The order and judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decree of the trial court is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.