CHALLAGUNDLA VARAMMA Vs. MADALA GOPALADASAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which the question of law referred to this Full Bench arises may be shortly stated thus:

(2.) Butchayya, a Hindu died in 1890. The 2nd defendant, his mother, inherited his properties with the rights and powers of a female heir. She sold the plaint properties in 1891 to the 3rd defendant. The then presumptive reversioner P.W. 1 who was entitled at once to sue for a declaration on behalf of the whole body of successive presumptive reversioners (including the 3rd defendant) failed to bring such a suit within the twelve years allowed to him by Article 125 of the Limitation Act, that is, within November 1903. The 3rd defendant who was benefited by the 2nd defendant s alienation would, of course, not bring any such suit. Meanwhile, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, (minors even at the date of this suit), were born to Butchayya s step-sisters and they on their birth became nearer presumptive reversioners than even P.W. 1. The plaintiff having been born in July 1910, brought this suit to avoid the alienation, in October 1915 within six years of his birth. The short question referred to the Full Bench is whether this suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) To enable us to solve this question, arguments were addressed to us on the following questions: 1 (a). When a Hindu widow makes an alienation voidable against the ultimate reversionary heir at her death or remarriage, does a single cause of action for a declaration of its invalidity arise at once to be availed of by the next presumptive reversioner by bringing a suit on behalf of the whole body of successive reversioners till the opening of the reversion, and, in case the next presumptive reversioner by collusion or other act precludes himself from availing himself of that single cause of action, to be availed of by the next reversioner in the order of succession and so on, the suit whenever brought being based on the same single cause of action ? (b). Is Article 125 the only article applicable to the suit based on such single cause of action if 1 (a) is answered in the affirmative or 2. Do several causes of action arise at different times to several reversioners when each preceding reversioner has lost his right to bring and conduct such a suit through collusion or other similar acts ? (I shall use the word "reversioner" for brevity as including a set of reversioners standing on an equal footing as among themselves). 3 (a). If each successive reversioner gets a new cause of action does that cause of action spring up not only when the previous reversioner loses his right by collusion, etc.-positive act, but also when such right is lost by laches and consequent bar by limitation? (b). If 2 and 3 (a) are answered in the affirmative, what is the period of limitation and what is the article of the Limitation Act governing a suit by the succeeding reversioner ?