LAKSHMAN SUBRAO BIJUR Vs. BABANI SOIRU BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question allied to that with which I have just dealt in Babani V/s. Dulba (1931) 34 Bom. L.R. 357. The present case, however, is clearer, because the person to whom the property was " restored,"-one Anant Habbu- stated to the authorities that he was not entitled to more than one-half the property. The appellant is a transferee from the persons who were entitled to a quarter of the other half. The respondents refused to recognise the right of the appellant to get that quarter. They succeeded in the lower Courts. The Court of the first instance considered that the appellant was not entitled to any relief, because the transfer to him was (under the Transfer of Property Act. Section 6) a transfer of a chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate.

(2.) The learned District Judge considered the applicability of Secs.27 and 18 of the Specific Relief Act, and held that the facts did not come within those provisions, because he considered that the appellant's transferor had " neither the expectancy as used in legal terminology, nor imperfect nor a full title to the property he was agreeing to sell."

(3.) The remarks of the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Romer in Biss, In re. Bias V/s. Biss (1903) 2 Ch. 40 to which I referred in my judgment in Babani V/s. Dulba show the nature of positions held by the parties in cases of this kind. It was the duty of Anant to hold the benefit that he acquired under the restoration order, not only for himself, but for the others who were entitled to the restoration of the lands under the Government Resolution, The right to that benefit, after it had become definite (on the Government Resolution being passed), was capable of being transferred, The appellant has acquired that right from Narayan.