Case: Dindyal &amp; Anr Vs. Rajaram

1. This appeal by special leave arises from the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in second appeal No. 938 of 1965 on its file2. The facts found which are no more in dispute, and relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of law arising for decision in this appeal may now be briefly stated. One Gulli Gotamia had two sons by name Girdharilal and Nandoo. From the material on record, it is not possible to find out the date of death of Gulli Gotamia but admittedly he died leaving behind him his aforementioned two sons, Girdharilal and Nandoo were divided. Girdharilal died on May 17, 1920. His first wife had predeceased him. But at the time of his death, his second wife Ladli Bahu was alive. On his death his widow took possession of his properties. Girdharilals brother Nandoo had two children, Gajadhar and Lachhi. Lachhi died issueless. Gajadhar also is dead. He has two children Dindayal (1st defendant) and Prameshwar Dayal (second defendant) Girdharilal had a daughter from his pre-deceased wife by name Konsa Bai. She died in 1943. Ladli Bahu had a daughter by name Nanni Bai who died in 1941. The children of Nanni Bai, Narbada Bai, Raja Ram, Ram Narain and Gaya Prasad are the plaintiffs in the suit3. Ever since the death of Girdharilal, Ladli Bahu was in possession of the suit properties. She gifted those properties to her daughter Nanni Bai on July 30, 1936 and put the donee in possession of the same. Thereupon Konsa Bai filed a suit in 1937 seeking a declaration that the gift deed in question is not binding on her and that it cannot come in her way in inheriting the suit properties on the death of Ladli Bahu. That suit was decreed on May 3, 1937. As mentioned earlier, Nanni Bai died in 1941. On her death, the plaintiffs came into possession of the suit properties. Ladli Bahu took wrongful possession of the suit properties from the plaintiffs on June 1, 1951 under the guise of enforcing the decree in the suit filed by Konsa Bai. Thereafter she continued to be in exclusive possession of the suit properties. On May 27, 1952, she gifted some of those properties to one Rameshwar Prasad and the remaining properties she gifted to the appellants on March 21, 1957. She died on April 9, 1960. The Hindu Succession Act came into force on June 17, 19564. Two questions namely (1) what is the effect of the possession taken by Ladli Bahu on June 1, 1951, and (2) Did Ladli Bahu become the full owner of those properties in view of Section 14(2) ofthe Hindu Succession Act, 1956, were presented to the High Court as well as to the Courts below for decision5. The High Court came to the conclusion that Ladli Bahus possession of the suit properties after June 1, 1951, was that of a trespasser and as such she did not become an absolute owner of those properties on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. It also held that the plaintiffs became entitled to the suit properties on the death of Ladli Bahu as the nearest reversioners of Girdharilal.

Court's reasoning:
7. The High Court and the courts below have come to the conclusion that the gift made by Ladli Bahu in favour of Nanni Bai is a valid gift and that Nanni Bai came into possession of the suit properties on the strength of that gift. Hence she must be held to have had no interest in those properties thereafter. Therefore when Ladli Bahu took possession of those properties in 1951, she did so as a trespasser. This conclusion, in our opinion, is unassailable.If we come to the conclusion that she continued as a trespasser on the date the Hindu Succession Act, came into force and even thereafter till her death then she cannot be held to have acquired any right under the Hindu Succession Act because before, any property can be said to be "possessed" by a Hindu woman, as provided in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, two things are necessary (a) she must have had a right to the possession of that property and (b) she must have been in possession of that property either actually or constructively - See S. S. Munna Lal v. S. S. Rajkumar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 418 = (AIR 1962 SC 1493  ); Kuldip Singh v. Surain Singh, Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1964 D/- 1-5-1967 (SC)14. In1951, the plaintiffs had two different rights over the suit properties - one under the gift referred to earlier and the other as reversioner. One was an existing right, the other was a prospective one. Their right under the gift must be held to have been extinguished under Article 1, "Sch. II read with Section 104 of the Act.But their right to those properties, as reversioners arose only after the death of Ladli Bahu. That right could not have been barred even before it accrued. As against the prospective reversioners Ladli Bahu was holding the suit properties as a trespasser. She had acquired no rights in those properties as against them. Till her death, it was not possible under law to predicate who would have been her husbands nearest revisioner on the date of her death.