SITABAI SHRIRAM Vs. KOTHULAL BUDHU LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Appeal No. 91-A of 1951 which was heard and decided by the learned Judge on 12-7-1952. The said Civil Appeal No. 91-A of 1951, in its turn, arose out of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Gondia, in Civil Suit No. 54-A of 1950 which was heard and decided by him on 27-10-1951. Second Appeal No. 651 of 1952 is filed by defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and Second Appeal No. 641 of 1952 is filed by defendant No. 2.

(2.) THESE appeals raise a question under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. ' 30 of 1956) and the question raised is whether the principle of reversion to the tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings of a Hindu leaving behind him surviving no issue but only a widow is saved from the operation of the Act. This point arises upon the following facts.

(3.) THE plaintiff who is one of the respondents in these appeals has filed Civil Suit No. 54-A of 1950 for a declaration that the alienations made by his deceased brother's wife Bhagirathabai, who is defendant No. 1 in this litigation, in favour of other defendants were made without legal necessity and, therefore, they were not binding upon him, It is to be noted that after the death of her first husband Narayan, Bhagirathabai remarried, and it is the contention of the plaintiff that the various alienations made by her were not binding upon him beyond her own lifetime or after her remarriage. The learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the alienations made by Bhaghathabai were without legal necessity. Feeling dissatisfied with the decree of the lower appellate Court, defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have appealed against it and these are those appeals.