CHINNAKOLANDAI GOUNDER Vs. THANJI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises an interesting question of law about the applicability of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Central Act XXX of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The brief facts of the case are: the properties involved in the suit belonged to one Govindaraja goundan, who died about 30 years ago. The plaintiff and the first defendant are his brothers while the third defendant is his widow. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant, and he has married the third defendant's brother's daughter. The third defendant who was in possession of her husbands properties conveyed the same to the second defendant under a registered deed of gift, Ex. B. 1, dated 1-6-1948. On 2-9-1958, the plaintiff as the nearest reversioner of Govindaraja goundan filed the suit for a declaration that the gift deed in favour of the second defendant would not be binding on the reversioner after the death of the widow. Two months later, while the suit was pending, the second defendant, the settle under Ex. B. 1, conveyed back the properties to the widow under Ex. B. 2, dated 12-11-1958. On behalf of the widow, the third defendant, the objection was raised that by reason of this reconveyance under Ex. B. 2, and S. 14 (1) of the Hindu succession Act, she had become the absolute owner of the properties, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to continue the suit as a reversioner of Govindaraja Goundan. In other words, the plea of the third defendant was that as a result of the reconveyance the properties became hers and the plaintiff cannot make any claim thereto, whether immediate or contingent, as a reversioner of Govindaraja.

(2.) THE trial Court held that the material date was the date when the suit was filed, and that the widow was not in possession of the properties of her husband, that the plaintiff, the reversioner was entitled to the declaration, and that the reconveyance during the pendency of the suit would not in any way affect the right of the reversioner to obtain a declaration that the alienation would not bind the reversionary interest after the lifetime of the widow. But on appeal the learned subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion and allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to continue the suit and no declaration can be made in his favour. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

(3.) THOUGH some argument was advanced in the courts below that the widow herself was in possession of the property despite the settlement, Ex. B. 1, learned counsel on both sides accepted the position that from 1948, the date of the settlement, till the reconveyance, the widow had no possession of the properties, and that it was with the settlee, the second defendant.