BECHU PANDE Vs. MTDULHMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that a deed of gift executed by Mt. Dulhma in favour of her daughter Musammat Maharaji is invalid as against the right of the reversioners. The pedigree of the family to which the parties belong is given in the judgment of the Court below. Musammat Dulhma's husband, Ram Adhin, was the last survivor of the joint family to which he belonged and on his death Musammat Dulhma succeeded to a widow's interest in the property. She has three daughters who are all alive and are defendants to the; suit, and at the time of the institution of the suit there was also a daughter's son, Bachcha, who was Defendant No. 5. This child has since died.

(2.) The gift was in favour of one only of Musammat Dulhma's three daughters. The Courts below have held that it was valid as an acceleration of the widow's life interest. This finding is erroneous. It was held by the Privy Council in. Rangasami Gounden V/s. Nachiappa Gounden A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 196 that a surrender to be valid must be in favour of the nearest reversioner if there be only one, or all the reversioners I nearest in degree if there be more than, lone. This decision has been followed I in this Court in the recent case of Prag Narain V/s. Mathura Parsad A.I.R. 1924 All. 740 and by the Bombay High Court in Dodbasappa Ramalingappa V/s. Basawaneppa Shivlingappa [1918] 42 Bom. 719.

(3.) The next question is whether the plaintiff as a remote reversioner had any right to institute the suit. The general rule on the subject was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rani Anada Kunwar V/s. The Court of Wards [1881] 6 Cal. 764.