LALA BHAGATRAM PYARELAL CHHATRI Vs. BHAKLURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Utters Patent from a decision of Tare J. arises out of a suit filed by the respondents, who as remote reversionary heirs of one Sukhlat claimed a declaration that the sale of the land in suit affected by Mst. Jagarmati, the widow of Sukhlal, in favour of the defendant-appellant did not affect the rights of any of the reversionary heirs after the death of the alienor. The plaintiffs joined in the suit three nearer reversioners as defendants alleging that they were neither prepared to file a suit for declaration nor were they ready to support the plaintiff's claim. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Second class, Bilaspur. Thereupon the appellant Bhagatram, who had purchased the property, unsuccessfully appealed first to the District Judge of Bilaspur, and then to this Court

(2.) THE only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether in the presence of nearer reversioners the plaintiffs were entitled to challenge the alienation made by Mst. Jagarmati. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Courts below had exercised a judicial discretion in permitting remote reversioners to sue as the nearer reversioners persistently refused to challenge the alienation made by the widow and this indicated their concurrence in the act of the widow Mst. Jagarmati. He rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiffs had prima facie failed to show that the nearer reversioners had, without sufficient cause, refused to challenge the alienation. According to him, the plaintiffs had established "a successive course of conduct on the part of the next reversioners which indicated either their implied consent or concurrence with the wrongful act of the widow in alienating the property without any legal necessity", and that, therefore, it was on the nearer reversioners and the appellant not only to allege but also to prove the existence of sufficient cause on the part of the nearer reversioners for their refusal to sue.

(3.) SHRI Jakatdar, learned counsel for the appellant, did not, and indeed could not, question the firmly established principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rani anand Kunwar v. Court of Wards, ILR 6 Cal 764 (PC), and other decisions of the various High Courts that a remote reversioner is entitled to sue if the nearer reversioners refuses, without sufficient cause, to institute proceedings, or has concurred in the act alleged to be wrongful, or has colluded with the limited heir, or has precluded himself by his own act or conduct from suing, or is not in a position to sue because of his poverty. He, however, argued that the plaintiffs claimed to institute their suit on the ground that the nearer reversioners were unwilling to challenge the alienation; that according to the Privy Council decision the unwillingness on the part of the nearer reversioners entitling the remote reversioners to sue must be one without sufficient cause; and that the plaintiff did not even allege any "insufficient cause" for the unwillingness of the nearer reversioners to sue for a declaratory decree, nor did the plaintiffs make any attempt to prove the fact that the nearer reversioners were refusing to challenge the alienation without any sufficient cause.