BHABATARAN BAGISH Vs. PRAHLAD CHANDRA MAHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, preferred at the instance of the Plaintiffs, we are concerned with the interpretation of the words 'possessed by a female Hindu' in Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the Plaintiffs for a declaration that their reversionary rights in respect of the suit lands remained unaffected. One Tripura Charan Banerjee, who was the owner of the suit lands, died leaving his widow Fakirmoni, the Defendant No. 7, as his sole heiress and legal representative. Fakirmoni inherited only a limited interest in the suit lands from her husband. She granted permanent leases in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of ka schedule lands of the plaint in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on April 26, 1952 and April 20, 1953, respectively, reserving yearly rents to herself and sold item No 3 of the ka schedule lands to the Defendant No. 3 by a kobala dated January 29, 1957. She also granted permanent leases in respect of items Nos. 1 and 2 of kha schedule lands of the plaint in favour of the Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on January 10, 1951 and November 8, 1954, respectively, reserving yearly rents to herself. The Plaintiffs, who are the sister's sons of the said Tripura Charan Banerjee, claimed to be his reversionary heirs. It was alleged by the Plaintiffs that all those transfers by Fakirmoni were illegal, fraudulent and collusive and had cast a cloud on their title as reversionary.

(3.) The Defendants contested the suit and their defence was that the said transfers by Fakirmoni were bona fide and valid transfers and that, in any event, by virtue of the provisions of the Act Fakirmoni became the absolute owner of the suit lands which precluded the Plaintiffs from challenging the said transfers.