Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to ancestral properties originally owned by Mela Ram, who died leaving his mother Radha as his limited heir. The properties included houses, shops, and agricultural land in villages Kahnuwan, Chak Yaqub, and Daowal in Gurdaspur. Radha had two daughters, Durgi Devi and Devki Devi. On February 28, 1922, Radha executed a gift deed in favour of her grandson Shiv Dass, son of Durgi Devi, covering certain house properties. She also executed a will bequeathing agricultural land. Durgi Devi died in 1924. Radha died on December 21, 1960. In 1965, Devki Devi filed a suit for declaration that the gift deed and will were invalid and that alienations by Shiv Dass did not bind her, claiming a share as sister of Mela Ram. The trial court decreed the suit in 1967, and the Additional District Judge affirmed in 1968. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on February 14, 1978. Shiv Dass appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court considered three main issues: first, whether the appeal abated because Devki Devi died in January 1978 and her legal representatives were not impleaded in the High Court; second, whether Radha became absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and third, whether Devki Devi, as reversioner, could challenge the gift and will executed by Radha. The respondents argued the appeal abated. The appellant contended that Radha became absolute owner and he, as heir of Durgi Devi, was entitled to half share. The Court rejected the abatement objection, holding that when a party dies after hearing but before judgment, the aggrieved person need not file an application under Order 22 CPC; it was sufficient that the legal representatives were impleaded eo nomine in the appeal filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had allowed the respondents' application on April 6, 1979 to bring legal representatives on record, curing any initial defect. On merits, the Court held that Radha was not in possession of the properties when the Hindu Succession Act came into force, so Section 14(1) did not apply and she did not become absolute owner. Since she died testate, Section 15 was also inapplicable. The Court relied on the principle that a limited owner under Hindu law cannot alienate or bequeath property to defeat the rights of reversioners. The succession to Mela Ram opened in 1923; Durgi Devi and Devki Devi as sisters were reversioners, and Devki Devi was entitled to half share. The prior Lahore High Court decision in Shiv Das v. Nand Lal, AIR 1932 Lahore 361, had protected Shiv Dass's rights against collaterals but did not affect Devki Devi's rights as sister. Therefore, the gift deed and will were invalid and inoperative to the extent they affected Devki Devi's half share. The Supreme Court confirmed the trial court decree as a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the parties. It directed that upon application, the trial court would proceed to final decree. Any alienated properties in excess of the respondents' half share could be recovered with mesne profits, and alienated properties were to be allotted as far as possible to the appellant's half share. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Abatement and Legal Representatives - Order 22 Rules 3, 4 CPC - When a party dies after hearing but before judgment, subsequent appeal need not implead legal representatives in High Court; defect cured by order of Supreme Court allowing impleadment as heirs - Respondents raised preliminary objection that appeal abated due to non-impleadment of deceased Devki Devi; Court held that since Devki Devi died in January 1978 after High Court heard second appeal on 04.01.1978 and before judgment on 14.02.1978, and respondents' application to bring legal representatives on record was allowed by Supreme Court on 06.04.1979, the initial defect cured and no abatement occurred - Held that appeal was validly laid (Para 4) B) Hindu Succession - Absolute Ownership of Female Hindu - Section 14(1) and 15 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) requires possession of property when Act came into force; if not in possession, limited ownership continues and Section 15 does not apply as she did not die intestate - Appellant contended Radha became absolute owner upon Act and appellant entitled as heir; Court found Radha was not in possession of property when Act came into force, so Section 14(1) not attracted; she died testate so Section 15 inapplicable - Held that appellant cannot claim through Radha as absolute owner (Para 5) C) Hindu Law - Reversionary Rights - Limited Owner's Alienation by Gift or Will - Succession to Mela Ram's estate opened in 1923; daughters Durgi Devi and Devki Devi as sisters are reversioners; limited owner cannot alienate or bequeath property to defeat reversioners, even to grandson - Radha was only limited owner entitled to enjoy properties during lifetime; gift deed dated 28.02.1922 and will Ex.D-2 invalid, inoperative and do not bind reversioners; prior Lahore High Court decision in Shiv Das v. Nand Lal (AIR 1932 Lahore 361) upheld grandson's rights qua collaterals, but not against Devki Devi; both sisters entitled to equal moiety, so Devki Devi and legal representatives entitled to half estate - Held that alienations by Radha or Shiv Dass invalid to extent not binding on Devki Devi and respondents (Para 6) D) Civil Procedure - Preliminary Decree and Mesne Profits - Final Decree Proceedings - Trial court decree confirmed as preliminary decree declaring rights; court to proceed further on application for final decree; if properties exceeding respondents' half share alienated, respondents may recover possession with mesne profits; alienated properties to be allotted as far as possible to appellant's half share - Court confirmed trial court decree and gave directions for partition and recovery - Held that appeal disposed of with parties bearing own costs (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal abated due to non-impleadment of legal representatives of deceased respondent; whether Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 conferred absolute ownership on Radha; whether Devki Devi as reversioner could challenge gift and will made by limited owner Radha
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of; trial court decree confirmed and treated as preliminary decree declaring rights; respondents entitled to half estate; alienations invalid to extent not binding respondents; if properties in excess of half share alienated, respondents may recover possession with mesne profits; alienated properties to be allotted as far as possible to appellant's half share; parties bear own costs.
Law Points
- A limited owner under Hindu law cannot alienate or bequeath property to defeat reversioners
- Section 14(1) Hindu Succession Act
- 1956 requires possession of property when the Act came into force
- Order 22 CPC abatement not attracted if legal representatives impleaded in Supreme Court
- sisters succeed to brother's estate in equal moiety
- alienations by limited owner invalid against reversioners not parties
