Case: Radhey Krishan Singh &amp; Others Vs. Shiva Shankar Singh &amp; Others

2. One Babu Deonandan Prasad Singh died in 1925 leaving behind him considerable property. His widow Dulhin Janki Dulari Kuer, defendant no. 4, being the next heir, inherited that property. In about 1953 the widow settled about 80 bighas of bakasht land in favour of defendants 1 and 2, who were the brothers of defendant no. 4, and defendant no. 3, who was the nephew of defendant no. 4. The plaintiffs claiming to be the reversioners, filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, onalleging that the settlements were liable to be set aside as they were male fide, illegal and without consideration and were designed to injure or jeopardize the right of inheritance of the reversioners. The original plaintiff no. 1 claimed to be the nearest reversioner and the other plaintiffs claimed to be a little remote reversioners.

Reasoning: 6. On that finding the decree of the Trial Court ought to have been confirmed but the High Court went further and held that in view of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the lands having vested in the State in 1955 and settled with the persons who were then in possession, no purpose would be served by giving any relief in this suit. Alternatively, on the setting aside of the alienation, possession would be deemed to have reverted to the widow when the Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956 and that, thereafter, the widow would get an absolute estate in the property and thus also all reversionary interests would fail. In that view the appeal was allowed and the suit wasthe present case the Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956 and the settlements challenged were much prior to that date. Therefore, the reversioners could not be precluded from maintaining the suit for setting aside the alienation.9. As regards the other ground on which the High Court dismissed the suit, namely, Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, it is sufficient to point out that no such plea was raised in the written statement nor was any issue framed. It does not also appear that any argument was advanced on that basis before the Trial Court. The point seems to have been taken for the first time during the course of the argument before the High Court, and we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in entertaining that submission for the first time. It would be difficult to say if, on the alienation being set aside, defendants 1 to 3 would be still entitled to claim an interest in the property sufficient to warrant the State to settle those lands on them as occupants. We do not want to express any opinion on the point. The widow is living and the plaintiffs have not asked for possession of the land. What would be the nature of the right to the property of a reversioner after the death of defendant no. 4 would depend upon future events and it will not be right to speculate on it. The High Court was, therefore, in error in invoking the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act at the present stage.