Baijnath Potedar and Others vs Ramautar Choudhary and Others

In this appeal the respondents claim to be the reversioners to the estate of defendant No. 9, Mosammat Kari Kumari, widow of Bhagwan Choudhary, and prayed for a declaration that the two sale deeds executed by defendant No. 9, exhibit B-1, dated the 4th July, 1935, and exhibit B-1/2, dated the 10th September, 1941, were not executed for legal necessity and were not binding upon the reversioners. Both the lower Courts have accepted the case of the plaintiffs and granted a decree to the effect that the sale deeds, exhibits B-1 and B-1/2 were not executed for legal necessity and were not binding upon the reversioners.

In support of this appeal, Counsel on be half of the appellants made the submission that the suit of the reversioners must be dismissed in view of the change brought about in the legal position by the Hindu Succession Act (Act XXX of 1956) which came into force on the 17th of June, 1956. It was also argued that the appellate Court was entitled to take into consideration the legislative changes which had supervened since the decision has been given.

It was also argued that on reading Sections 14 and 15 of Act XXX of 1956 it was clear that the plaintiffs are not now in the position of rever-sioners and the estate of the widow is not a limited estate, but an absolute estate and the plaintiffs have no vested interest in the property nor any right of reversion nor any kind of spes successions. In support of this argument, learned Counsel relied upon three decisions namely, Ram Ayodhya Missir and Others Vs. Raghunath Missir and Others, , Mt. Dhanwantia and Another Vs. Deonandan Mahto and Others, , and a decision in Mt. Janki Kuer and Others Vs. Chhathu Prasad and Others, .

In our opinion, the ratio of these decisions applies to the present case, and it must be held that the respondents-plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring the suit and they are no more in the position of reversioners to the estate of the last male holder, namely, Bhagwan Chaudhury, husband of Mosammat Kari Kumari. It follows, therefore, that this appeal must be allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs must stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs throughout.