LAXMAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACNAIR , Offg. J.C. 1. The reference to the Beach is in the following terms: Has a Hindu widow the right to surrender her late husband's holding whether absolute occupancy or occupancy to defeat the expectancy of a reversioner, even when her surrender is intended to defeat the claim of such person?

(2.) IT seems clear that by "surrender to defeat" is meant surrender so as to defeat, not surrender in order to defeat. The question then may be stated thus: Has a Hindu widow the right to surrender her late husband's holding whether absolute occupancy or occupancy in such a manner as to defeat the expectancy of a reversioner when the object of the surrender is to., defeat that expectancy?

(3.) THE reference raises two questions: the widow's right with respect to the absolute occupancy holding and her right with respect to the occupancy holding. The reported rulings, which interpret the provisions of the Tenancy Acts of 1863 (Act No. 11) and of 1898 (Act No. 11) with respect to the right of a Hindu widow do not make any substantial distinction between absolute occupancy and occupancy holdings. The changes introduced by the Tenancy Act of 1920 (Act l) do not appear to affect the reasoning given in these judgments so far as occupancy holdings are concerned and the published rulings interpreting this Act deal with occupancy holdings. I shall therefore consider in the first place the question which refers to the occupancy holdings.