LACHHMAN Vs. THUNIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been referred to a Full Bench as one of the questions which arose, when it came up for hearing before one of us, was whether the rights of the reversioners who had obtained a decree declaring that their rights were intact despite an alienation made by a widow, prior to the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were affected by the provisions of the Act. A Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Amar Singh v. Sewa Ram, 62 Pun LR 537 = (AIR 1960 Punj 530 FB) had, it was submitted, held that the rights of reversioners are" not governed by the provisions of the Act, but by the law prevailing before the commencement of the Act. This question arose, on the facts found by the lower courts, as detailed below.

(2.) On the death of Shihnu, the last male holder of the property in dispute, his widow, Smt. Karju, succeeded as a limited owner of the estate left. On 22-5-1946, she gifted the land in dispute, which included her share in Shamilat land, to Lachhman defendant-appellant. Thunia Ram, respondent and two others, claiming to be the collaterals of the last male owner, filed suit No. 407 of 1946 for possession of the property consisting of land, a house, a kitchen, a cow-shed, and some share in Shamilat deh. The plaintiffs in that suit denied that Smt. Karju was the widow of Sihnu, so that she had no right to make any gift in favour of Lachhman. They claimed the property left by Sihnu to be theirs as his collaterals, irrespective of whether she had made a gift or not. In the alternative, the plaintiffs set up the case that, if Smt. Karju was the widow of Sihnu, the gift made by her could not bind the plaintiffs after the death of Smt. Karju and prayed for a declaration to that effect. The plaintiffs failed on the first plea so that their suit for possession could not be decreed, but the alternative case was accepted so that a declaration was given that the plaintiffs were reversioners of Sihnu and that the gift made by Smt. Karju was not binding on them after her death.

(3.) After the death of Smt. Kariu, In February, 1966. Thunia, plaintiff-respondent, filed the suit, out of which the second appeal before us has arisen, for possession of the property in dispute on the ground that he was entitled as a reversioner and the nearest heir. The trial Court repelled the plea of the defendant-appellant, Lachhman denying the right of Thunia as the reversioner and nearest heir to Sihnu. It also rejected Lachhman's claim to the house properties put forward on the allegation that the constructions had been made by Lachhman. Lachhman had also set up his own right to Shamilat land. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession except with regard to one-third share of the Shamilat land. So far as the constructions were concerned, the trial court had held that, although they were involved in the previous suit, the claim to these had been dismissed in that suit on the ground that they were not the subject-matter of the gift so that no declaration could be given to the plaintiff at that time with respect to these.