NARU HARI GUJAR Vs. TAI DEVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are few and simple. One Gopal was the owner of the property in suit. He died leaving a widow named Venai and a daughter named Vithai. He also left a nephew. In March 1911 the widow conveyed the whole of her estate by way of gift to her daughter by a. registered deed. The daughter conveyed the whole estate absolutely to the widow on December 14, 1912. The daughter Vithai died in 1915 leaving a daughter Tai, who is the present defendant. Venai, the widow, gifted away the lands now in suit to her grand- daughter, the defendant, on April 6, 1916. The plaintiff, who is the nephew of Gopal, claims these lands as a reversioner. Venai died in November 1918, and the plaintiff filed this suit in April 1919 to recover the lands as a reversioner. The defence of the defendant was that the widow Venai completely and effectively surrendered her whole estate to the next reversioner, her daughter, in March 1911, that when the daughter Vithai conveyed back the lands in December 1912 to her, the widow got an absolute estate, and that therefore, the gift of the lands in suit by her in 1916 in favour of her grand-daughter was valid, and not liable to be questioned by the reversioner as an alienation made by the widow.

(2.) The trial Court decided in favour of the plaintiff holding that the result of the two transactions of March 1911 a December, 1912 was that there was no surrender of the widow's estate, and that in effect the widow continued to hold the widow's estate at the date of the gift in favour of the present defendant. She was, therefore, held to be incompetent to convey any interest beyond her life-time, as there was no suggestion of any legal necessity in the case. Accordingly a decree was passed in favour of the reversioner.

(3.) In appeal, the learned Assistant Judge declined to treat the two transactions of 1911 and 1912 as part of one and the same transaction. He treated the transaction of March 1911 on its own merits, and came to the conclusion that thereby Venai effectively surrendered the widow's estate in favour of her daughter, the then next reversioner, and that she got back in 1912, not the original widow's estate, but a complete and absolute ownership over the lands which was vested in the daughter at that date. He was, therefore, of opinion that the gift of the lands in suit to the grand-daughter in 1916 by the widow was valid, and the reversioner had no right to challenge it. The suit was accordingly dismissed.