GANGA BAKHSH SINGH Vs. MADHO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case was referred to this Bench, as it raised a question of law on which there was a difference of opinion between a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court and some Division bench rulings of the Avadh Chief Court. The point for decision is whether a reversioner who had given his consent to a gift made by a Hindu widow of a part of her husband's property could claim possession of that property on the death of the widow, the succession having opened in his favour.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Padam Singh died issueless in the year 1899 leaving a widow Deoka Kuar, who got possession of his estate. On 16-11-1916, Deoka Kuar and four other persons, Tikam Singh, Jit Singh, Bhikham Singh and Tilak Singh, who were the presumptive rever-sioners on that date, executed a deed of gift in favour of Niranjan Singh, dharmu. Singh and Har Baklish Singh, sister's sons of Deoka Kuar, transferring to them one-sixth share in the estate. On 10-11-1931, Deoka Kuar died and Bhikham Singh and Tilak singh, who were alive on that date, became the owners of the property. They did not challenge the deed in their lifetime and on 2-4-1943, before the expiry of 12 years a suit was filed by madho Singh, son of Tilak Singh deceased and Suraj Bakhsh Singh and Durga Bakhsh Singh, legatees under the will of Bhikham Singh for possession of the one-sixth share that had been gifted. The defendants are the sons of Niranjan Singh, Dharmu Singh and Har Bakhsh Singh, all the three having died before the date of the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court following a decision of the late Avadh Chief Court decreed the suit on 21-12-1943 and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 24-7-1944. On 30-3-1949, the case was referred by a learned single Judge to a Full Bench but in December, 1949 when the case came up before a Bench of three learned Judges, in view of the decision in -- 'faten Singh v. Thakur Rukmini Rawanji Maharaj', AIR 1923 All 387 (FB) (A), the case was referred to a larger Bench. In the referring order of Kidwai, J. there is a full and detailed discussion of the case law on the point and it is therefore not necessary for us to refer to them in detail.