LAWS(PVC)-1920-6-131

SURESHWAR MISSER Vs. MAHESHRANI MISRAIN

Decided On June 24, 1920
Sureshwar Misser Appellant
V/S
Maheshrani Misrain Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Nanu Prashad Misser died in April, 1906, and it is to his property that this suit relates. He was survived by a widow, the first respondent, by four daughters, also respondents, and by a son who was six years old. The son died within a few months after his father's death. The daughters then applied for letters of administration with the will annexed of the deceased father, under which will they took the immovable property on failure of the son under burden of certain provisions to the widow. The application was opposed by Madhab Misser, a first cousin of Nanu, who, at that time, was the nearest agnate, and upon the assumption that the will was inoperative, was the nearest reversioner according to Hindu law. Letters were, however, granted in respect that the will had been properly executed. Madhab Misser then raised a civil suit to have a declaration that the will was inoperative and that the property having been joint was succeeded to by the son; that upon his death the mother became entitled to a woman's interest, and that on her death when it happened the estate would devolve on the reversioner then entitled. This suit was opposed by the daughters and by the mother. The suit came on for trial before the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga and evidence was led; but before judgment was given a compromise was effected in terms of which the suit was decreed. The compromise was to the following effect. The rights under the will were given up. The movable property, with the exception of certain animals and a small amount of grain, was given absolutely to the widow. The widow surrendered all right of succession to the immovable property. The plaintiff, who by this surrender became, as nearest reversioner, entitled to the immovable property, made over half of that property to the daughters. The plaintiff and the daughters each gave a small portion of the land to the widow for maintenance. The necessary deeds to carry out this arrangement were executed and from the date of said compromise, February, 1909, possession has been in terms of that arrangement.

(2.) IN September, 1911, Madhab Misser having then died, the plaintiffs, who are the nephews of Madhab and the nearest reversioners now in existence, raised the present suit, craving a declaration that the compromise was invalid and ineffectual, and that the parties had no right to Nanu's estate; that they, the plaintiffs, as reversioners would be entitled on the determination of the life interest of the widow, the first respondent, to the estate if at that time they still remained the nearest reversioners. The learned District Judge, and the High Court on appeal, dismissed the suit and appeal has now been taken to this Board.

(3.) THE power of a widow (and a mother succeeding to her son is in the same position) to deal with the estate with the consent of the nearest reversioner at the time was very fully examined by this Board in the recent case of Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden L.R. 46 I.A. 72, and what was there stated need not be here repeated. It is perhaps necessary to say that as the learned judges in the High Court delivered judgments in this case before that case was decided they laid stress on certain passages in the judgments in the case of Nobokishore v. Hari Nath Sarma Roy I.L.R. 10 C. 1102 which can hardly be taken as quite accurate in respect of what was decided by this Board.