BECHU AHIR Vs. HANSRAJ AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for a declaration that a deed of gift, dated 30th March 1922, executed by defendants 3 and 4, in favour of defendants 1 and 2, was null and void and not enforceable against the plaintiff s reversionary right. The following genealogical table will elucidate the relation of the parties: <TAB> Mansha Ahir _________|_____________ | | Gur Dayal Sheo Ratan | Mt. Manjhari Bechu plaintiff defendant 3. _________|______ | | Sarup = Anup | Mt. Sahti defendant 4 | Mt. Ganga Dei defendant 2. | Hansraj, defendant 1. </TAB>

(2.) Sheo Ratan was separate from Gur Dayal and Bechu. Sheo Ratan had two sons, Sarup and Anup. Anup predeceased his father, so that upon Sheo Ratan s death Sarup became the sole owner of the property by rule of survivorship. On 30th March 1922 Mt. Sahti, who on the death of Sarup had only a limited interest in the property, executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter Ganga Dei and her daughter s son Hansraj. Mt. Manjhari had no interest in the property, but she was joined in the execution of the deed of gift. Plaintiff claimed to be the next presumptive reversioner of Sheo Ratan. He alleged that upon the death of Sheo Ratan. Mt. Manjhari took to evil ways and that Sarup and Anup were not born in wedlock. The finding of the Court below is that Mt. Manjhari was the wedded wife of Sheo Ratan and Sarup and Anup were the lawful issues of that marriage. It is patent therefore that the plaintiff was not the next presumptive reversioner of Sarup. The next presumptive reversioner is Mt. Ganga Dei who, if she succeeds to the estate of Sarup, would also have a limited interest in the property. She was to be followed by Hansraj, the daughter s son. The succession of the plaintiff thus depends upon the happening of a remote and uncertain contingency.

(3.) The plaintiff did not state in the plaint that he was entitled to maintain the suit either because the next presumptive reversioners had colluded with the life tenant, or had otherwise precluded themselves from interfering. The suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was not the nest presumptive reversioner and therefore was not competent to maintain the suit. This plea found favour with the Courts below which dismissed the suit. Plaintiff impugns the correctness of the decision of the Courts below. The law regulating the right of action in suits by reversioners has been laid down by the Judicial Committee in In re Rani Anand Kunwar v. The Court of Wards [1881] 6 Cal. 764 The following pronouncement has been made in this case: