RANCHHOD RAMNARAYAN Vs. MANUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a short and interesting question under Section 53a, T. P. Act. The question is whether a reversioner can be said to be a person claiming under the widow after whose death he succeeds by reversion. This question has been answered differently by the Courts below. The learned trial Judge held that the reversioner could not be said to be a person claiming under the widow whereas the lower appellate Court has taken a contrary view.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation are very few and there is no dispute about them. The property in suit is a house situated in Ka-soda. This house originally belonged to Bhila Supdu. Bhila died in 1940 leaving behind him his widow Chhababai and two sisters Banabai and Manubai. His widow Chhababai entered into a contract of sale in regard to this house for Rs. 500 on 5-11-1944. The contract was reduced to writing, an earnest of Rs. 200 was received by Chhababai and the intending purchaser entered into possession of the property. This intending purchaser is the defendant in the present suit. A few months after she entered into this contract, Chhababai died. On her death, Banabai and Manubai, the two surviving sisters of Bhila, sold the property to the present plaintiff for Rs. 500 on 12-2-1945. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the present suit to recover possession of this property. His claim was resisted by the defendant who is in possession of the property principally under Section 53a, T. P. Act, and as I have already mentioned, his plea was rejected in the trial Court whereas it has been upheld in the lower appellate Court.

(3.) IT has been found by the lower appellate Court that the contract of sale was entered into by Chhababai for a legal necessity. It is found that at the time when this contract was made, Chhababai had to pay the debts of her deceased husband and the only conceivable manner in which this debt could be repaid was to sell the house which was the only property in her hands and raise money by such sale. Therefore, the finding is that the contract of sale was for legal necessity. It is also found that the intending purchaser entered into possession of the property in pursuance of the contract of sale and that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In other words, all the material ingredients of Section 53a are satisfied, and the dispute between the parties is whether even so the defendant is entitled to resist the claim of the purchaser from the reversioners on the ground that the reversioners were persons claiming under the transferor who was the widow Chhababai and as such they cannot claim any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken possession under the contract of sale. That is how the questipn which falls to be considered in the present appeal is whether the reversioners are persons claiming under the widow.