BAI VIDYAGAURI Vs. CHATURDAS AMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the plaintiff as the daughter of one Vrandavandasji, who died in 1935, sued to establish the will of her father, and also alleged that defendant No.2 was not his widow. Both those points were decided against her in the lower Courts, and they are not open in second appeal. Mr. Justice Sen dismissed the appeal summarily. The appellant in this Court contends that, as a reversioner and as a daughter entitled to maintenance, she can sue to administer the estate, even assuming that the will is invalid and that defendant No.2 is the widow. Both the tower Courts held that a reversioner could not sue to administer the estate, and I think on principle that is right. A reversioner under Hindu law has no vested interest. She has a right to sue the widow, who is the absolute owner subject to certain limitations, as to disposition and so forth, in certain cases which have been established in the Courts, for example, if the widow commits waste. But except for one case in the Calcutta High Court, a decision of a single Judge sitting on the Original Side, Rojomoyee Dassee v. Troylukho Mohiney Dassee (1901) I.L.R. 29 Cal, 260, we have been referred to no authority in support of the proposition that under Hindu law a reversioner can maintain a suit for administration of the estate which is vested in the widow, and we think that it would be a very dangerous thing to hold that such a suit lies. Mr. Thakor maintains that at any rate in respect of the plaintiff's right to maintenance she has a present title which justifies her in suing, but the answer to that is that, although she is undoubtedly entitled to sue in respect of her right to maintenance, that right is not in dispute, and in my opinion a right to maintenance gives no right to sue for general administration of the estate. The case of Rojotnoyee Dassee v. Troylukho Mohiney Dassee seems to stand by itself, and is not binding on this Court.

(2.) I think the decisions of the lower Courts and of Mr. Justice Sen were right, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs. N.J. Wadia, J.