PREM NARAYAN Vs. JHADO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench for decision: When a Hindu widow surrenders a holding inherited from her husband, is the reversioner, who successfully challenges the surrender, entitled to a decree for possession or only for a declaration that he is entitled to possession on the death of the widow?

(2.) IT had been held in Vithu v. Mt. Mendri [1909] 5 N.L.R. 126, Dajita v. Raghunath [1913] 9 N.L.R. 126, Bikram v. Thakur Ganesh Singh A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 129 and Mt. Gangoo v. Laxman A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 330 that a surrender by a Hindu widow in favour of the landlord of a holding inherited from her husband could not be questioned by the reversioners. This series of decisions, each by a single Judge, was interrupted by the decision of a Bench of two Judges in Wasudeo v. Bhiwa A.I.R. 1925 Nag. 306, in which a different view was taken. The view of the Bench was not considered binding in Bikram v. Thakur Ganesh Singh A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 129 and Mt. Gangoo v. Laxman A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 330, because the reversioner's right to challenge a widow's surrender was not the point before the Bench. Another Bench, in Laxman v. Bhulabai however examined the point again and, overruling the series of single Judge decisions above referred to, held that a Hindu widow cannot surrender her late husband's holding in order to defeat the expectancy of a reversioner. Tbe question whether the reversioner who successfully challenges the surrender must wait until the widow's death before getting possession was not decided. Hence arose the necessity for the present reference.

(3.) INDEED in a case like the present one there can hardly be said to be any effacement at all. By surrendering the holding for consideration the widow does not-surrender her husband's estate but takes it in a different form. In the second place, the surrender by a Hindu widow of her late husband's estate in favour of the next reversioner is intended to bring about the same result as would follow on her death, namely the immediate succession of the next reversioner. The intention in the case of a surrender of a holding in favour of the landlord is obviously entirely different. In such a case, even if the surrender is one that the next reversioner can successfully challenge, there is no reason why he should be placed in a better position than if the surrender had not been made, that is,, the intention of the widow should only be allowed to be defeated to the extent of holding that the status quo ante, as far as the next reversioner is concerned, has not been altered. I am of opinion that there is no real analogy between the two kinds of surrender, and that a widow surrendering to the landlord cannot be considered effaced until her death takes place.