SANKARAMBODY VIJIARAGHAVACHARIAR Vs. RAMANUJACHARIAR (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the widow, having effected certain alienations of her husband's property of which one was held not to be for necessity and consequently not binding on the reversion, afterwards purported to surrender the whole of her estate in favour of the reversioner. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Rangaswami Goundan V/s. Nachiappa Goundan (1918) L.R. 46 I.A. 72 : I.L.R. 42 M. 523 : 36 M.L.J. 493 (P.C.), a surrender in order to be valid must be a surrender of the complete interest of the widow in the estate. And Lord Morris is quoted at page 532 as follows: It may be accepted that, according to Hindu Law, the widow can accelerate the estate of the heir by conveying absolutely and destroying her life-estate. It was essentially necessary to withdraw her own life-estate so that the whole estate should get vested at once in the grantee.

(2.) THIS doctrine was accepted in that case and explained by the further observation: It is the effacement of the widow, an effacement which in other circumstances is effected by actual death or by civil death, which opens the estate of the deceased husband to his next heirs at that date. Now there cannot be a widow who is partly effaced and partly not so. 4. To apply this principle it is clear that when the widow purported to surrender her estate she did not and could not surrender the whole of her husband's estate so as to efface herself entirely. The previous alienations were her own act and she could not get rid of them. To that extent she was unable to surrender the whole of the estate and therefore the surrender which she purported to make is invalid. THIS is also the view taken in the decision in Sakharam Bala V/s. Thama (1927) I.L.R. 51 51 B. 1019 and there is no reason whatever to take any other view in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Rangaswami Goundan V/s. Nachiappa Goundan (1918) L.R. 46 I.A. 72 I.L.R. 42 M. 523 : 36 M.L.J. 493 (P.C.). Certain cases have been mentioned in which such a surrender has been acted upon, but the question whether it was a valid surrender or not was not raised and therefore those decisions are not authority in the present case. The contention that there is a residuary estate in the widow even after she has alienated the whole estate may or may not be correct. Vide Ckidambaramma V/s. Hussainamma (1915) I.L.R. 39 M. 565 : 29 M.L.J. 546. It is quite immaterial in determining the validity of the surrender. 5. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the appeal remanded to the Lower Appellate Court for disposal on the other issues. Costs to abide the result. The Court-fee will be refunded to the appellant.