M RAGHAVALU NAIDU Vs. KANSALYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of suit for possession. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the suit properties as the widow of one Maniram Misser and according to the plaintiff's case he was the reversionary heir to the estate of the last male owner of the suit properties named Guruprasad. The plaintiff's busband admittedly survived the widows of the last male owner; and if he was the nearest heir to Guruprasad on the date of the widow's death, it is not disputed that the plaintiff will be entitled to the property, subject to the other defences raised in the suit.

(2.) It was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff's husband was not the reversioner. This contention was based-upon two grounds one, that Guruprasad had left a will whereby his properties had been bequeathed absolutely to his two widows Rama Bai and Sona Bai; the other ground was that the plaintiff had not proved that her husband was the nearest heir and that there were no nearer heirs in existence.

(3.) As to the first question, it has been held by this Court, in a former stage of this litigation (in A.S. No. 132 of 1928) that even on the footing that the widows took an absolute estate under the will of their husband, the half share of the widow who died first, namely Rama Bai must be only deemed to have been inherited by the other as a co-widow and that notwithstanding the frame of the plaint the plaintiff was entitled to such relief as she could claim in respect of Rama Bai's half share. It was apparently then assumed that in respect of Rama Bai's half share, Sona Bai's heir would take only a limited interest; but the point was not definitely decided. Accordingly the appellant's learned Counsel in the course of his argument before us raised the contention that even in respect of Rama Bai's half share Sona Bai must be deemed to have taken an absolute interest that she was, therefore, competent to alienate it at her pleasure and that was no reversionary interest which plaintiff could claim as heir to her husband. It is sufficient to say that this contention is not tenable, in view of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Sheo Partab Bahadur Singh V/s. Allahabad Bank 25 A 476, (see also Agiswaraya Nandaji Saheb V/s. Sivaji Saja Saheb 49 M 116 at p 152 : 92 Ind. Cas. 928 : AIR 1926 Mad. 84 : 49 MLJ 568, where it was taken as settled that a co-widow who succeeded as heir to the Stridanam property of a co-widow would take only a limited interest).