Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933 – ss. 4,10 and
11 – Limitation Act, 1908 – Arts. 140, 141 and s.28 – Appellants case that one ‘R’ was the owner of the scheduled properties – He passed away in 1907 – He had two wives ‘J’ & ‘S’ – From his first wife ‘J’, he had one daughter ‘V’ and ‘V’ in turn had a daughter ‘JK’ – His first wife predeceased him and daughter ‘V’ died in 1910 – His second wife ‘S’ died in 1938 – Appellants claimed right to properties by virtue of sale deeds executed by ‘JK’ in the year 1955 – On the other hand, respondents contended that they had purchased the said property from one ‘SR’, who had in turn purchased from second wife of ‘R’ i.e. ‘S’ – Respondents were in possession of the property – Trial court decreed the suit in favour of appellants and declared them as owner of the properties entitled them to recover possession from the respondents – However, in first appeal, the Appellate Court inter alia found that the respondents were in possession and as the properties were not recovered within
12 years, thus suit was barred by limitation – High Court affirmed the judgment of the First Appellate Court – On appeal, held: In 1938, ‘S’ passed away – Even proceeding on the basis that ‘JK’, the grand-daughter of ‘R’ was a reversioner, her estate in expectancy became vested in her, upon the death of the ‘R’s widow, ‘S’ in 1938 – While it is true that it was open to the reversioner to ignore the sale deed executed by the widow, as not binding on her, as far as suit for recovery of possession, the law clearly provided for a period of 12 years and the period of limitation started with the death of the limited owner, namely, the widow in 1938 – The time started ticking with the passing away of the widow in 1938 – The period of limitation being 12 years, it ran out in 1950 – With the running out of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 (by Arts.140 and 141), the very right of the alleged reversioner ‘JK’ also came to an end – Thus, when she executed the sale in the year 1955 in favour of the appellants, she could not have conveyed any right – In such circumstances, no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – Hindu Law – Madras School of Mitakshara Law – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 31.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Under the Hindu Law, a widow took a limited estate. She was not a trustee for the reversioners. She was owner of the properties. But she could alienate the property only for necessity or benefit of the estate. By the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933 the widow’s estate became stridhana, which by virtue of Section 11 conferred upon her absolute right to dispose the property either by way of inter vivos transfer or will. The State Act came into force on 01.01.1934. When the succession opened on ‘R’ dying in 1907, he was survived by both his widow ‘S’ and also his daughter ‘V’. Therefore, it is quite clear that ‘S’ would not get an absolute right under Section 11 of the State Act. When succession opened in this case to the estate of ‘R’, in fact, the State Act was not in force at that time. The estate which was inherited by ‘S’ was that of a widow. Therefore, be it from stand point of Hindu Law as applicable prior to the State Act or the provisions of the State Act, ‘S’ did not acquire absolute rights. As such, the right which she had, was the right of the Hindu widow under Hindu Law. [Para 23][397-F-H; 398-A-B]
2. Further, as long as ‘S’-widow of ‘R’ was alive, no reversioners had any vested interest. The daughter of ‘R’ (‘V’) through his first wife passed away in the year 1910. At that time, ‘S’ the widow of ‘R’ was alive. Therefore, she (‘V’) would not get any right in the property. ‘S’ died only in the year 1938. When ‘S’ died in 1938, no doubt ‘JK’ (daughter of ‘V’) was alive. It is here that the Court must consider the argument of the respondents that the daughter of a daughter was not recognized as a heir. When succession opened upon the death of the widow, in this case, namely ‘S’ in the year 1938, if ‘JK’ could be treated as the reversioner being grand daughter of the last full owner, then the property would vest in ‘JK’. [Para 23][398-B-D]
3. There would be two obstacles for the appellants:- firstly, it would have to be held that ‘JK’ being the grand daughter of ‘R’ was a reversioner upon the death of ‘S’, the widow of ‘R’. Secondly, even assuming for a moment that ‘JK’ was the reversioner whether it was incumbent upon her to institute proceedings for recovery of possession within 12 years of death of ‘S’. [Para 24][398-E]
4. While it was open to the reversioners to ignore an alienation made by a Hindu widow and the period of limitation would not start to run upon a transfer effected by the Hindu widow, undoubtedly, the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of possession would commence upon the death of the widow. [Para 26][401-E-F]
5. The property was alienated by ‘S’, the widow of ‘R’ in favour of her brother ‘SR’ in the year 1913. Undoubtedly, it was open to the reversioner to proceed on the basis that such alienation does not bind her. [Para 27][401-F-G]
6. Thereafter, in 1938, ‘S’ passed away. Even proceeding on the basis that ‘JK’, the grand-daughter of ‘R’ was a reversioner, her estate in expectancy became vested in her, upon the death of the ‘R’ widow, ‘S’ in 1938. While it is true that it was open to the reversioner to ignore the sale deed executed by the widow, as not binding on her, as far as suit for recovery of possession, the law clearly provided for a period of 12 years and the period of limitation started with the death of the limited owner, namely, the widow in 1938. The time started ticking with the passing away of the widow in 1938. The period of limitation being
12 years, it ran out in 1950. With the running out of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 (by Articles
140 and 141), the very right of the alleged reversioner ‘JK’ also came to an end. Thus, when she executed the sale in the year 1955 in favour of the appellants, she could not have conveyed any right. That apart, even for a moment, proceeding on the basis that period of limitation would start from 12 years from 1955 when the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellants by ‘JK’ even that period ran out in 1967. In such circumstances, no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court. [Para 28][401-G-H; 402-A-C; F]
Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey & Ors. AIR 1962 SC
83 : [1962] SCR 553 ; Gogula Gurumurthy & Ors. v. Kurimeti Ayyappa (1975) 4 SCC 458 : [1974] 3 SCR
595 – relied on.
Kalipada Chakraborti & Anr. v. Palani Bala Devi & Ors. AIR 1953 SC 125 : [1953] SCR 503 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.