ABHOYA PADA TRIVEDI Vs. RAM KINKAR TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration of his title as a reversioner to certain property and also for joint possession. The facts of the case are briefly these. The joint family originally consisted of three brothers, Biroja, Satcouri and Nrisingha. Biroja died. leaving a widow Sarojini and Satcouri also died leaving three sons. In 1902 Sarajini executed a certain Nadabiratra in favour of the present plaintiff and the three sons by which she surrendered her interest in the property of her husband, Biroja. There was a further stipulation which was made by an ekrarnama that she would have a certain house for her residence and an allowance of Rs. 12 a month and the right to the fruit of certain cocoanut tree. The widow died in 1916 and Nrisingha who is now represented by his sons brought a suit for declaration of his right as a reversioner to the entire property of which Sarajini was enjoying possession. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower Appellate Court held that the Kadabipatra operated as a surrender of the entire estate of the Hindu widow Sarajini and was not operative only for her lifetime and it further held that the plaintiff was estopped by the rule of estoppel from contending that the transaction was not binding on him and that the surrender by the widow of the while estate was a valid surrender and could not be questioned by the reversioners.

(2.) In appeal four points have been raised on behalf, of the appellant. The first J& that the Nadabipatra made no disposition of the property beyond the lifetime of the widow. The second contention was that there was no surrender of the entire, estate to the next reversioner because the widow had. arranged that a monthly, allowance would be payable to her and. that she would have a right of residence; in certain house and that these items would be chargeable on the property. Thirdly, it is stated that the surrender was a surrender to the next reversioner and a third party and was bad in law; and fourthly, it was argued that the plaintiff was not estopped from challenging the validity of the surrender.

(3.) With regard to the first point we have: no hesitation in holding that the document, as the lower Courts have held, was a complete transfer of any rights that the widow had in the property and that: it was not intended to be a document-merely operative during the lifetime of the widow.