Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a civil dispute over joint family property in Himachal Pradesh. One Sunder, owner of extensive joint family property, executed a gift in favour of a distant collateral, Brij Lal. The remote reversioners, appellants, challenged the gift. The matter was compromised: appellants were to receive 15 Kanals and 15 Marias (1/8th share) after Sunder's death, some share went to Brij Lal's brothers, and the remainder to Brij Lal. The compromise was given the shape of a declaratory decree. Sunder died in 1964. Appellants then filed a suit to recover their share under the compromise decree. Brij Lal resisted, pleading that Lilan, sister of Sunder and a nearer female reversioner, was alive, and therefore appellants had no right to sue or recover possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Subordinate Judge decreed it, holding appellants entitled to recover possession in terms of the compromise decree. The Single Judge confirmed, holding that appellants were enforcing a right given by the compromise and Lilan not being a party, Brij Lal could not object to maintainability. The Division Bench in Letters Patent set aside the Single Judge, holding that although the decree enured for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners including Lilan, the suit was liable to be dismissed because Lilan was nearer and the decree was for the benefit of all reversioners. The Supreme Court considered whether remote reversioners were competent to sue and whether the alienee could raise the plea of nearer reversioner being alive. It noted that under customary Hindu Law a reversioner could challenge alienation not for legal necessity, including joint family property, and a remote reversioner could sue a stranger; a decree in such suit enured for all reversioners and only a nearer reversioner could oust the remote, but a third person or alienee could not claim non-maintainability. The Court held that the compromise decree was not an ordinary declaratory decree but a binding settlement acknowledging rights of appellants and even outsiders; the respondent could not reprobate to his advantage after drawing benefit from the compromise. The declaratory decree restored property to the alienor's estate, and succession opened on Sunder's death governed by law in force. Lilan could claim, but her failure to do so could not recoil against appellants in favour of a stranger. Moreover, Lilan died during pendency of the appeal, activating appellants' dormant rights. The Court exercised power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree in favour of appellants. The appeal was allowed, the Division Bench order set aside, and the Single Judge order restored; parties were to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Reversioner's Right to Challenge Alienation - Remote Reversioner Maintainability - Customary Hindu Law - A reversioner under customary Hindu Law had right to challenge alienation if not for legal necessity, including joint family property; remote reversioner could file suit against stranger; decree enured for entire body of reversioners, and only a nearer reversioner could oust the remote in the same or later suit; third person or alienee could not claim suit non-maintainable on that ground. Held that remote reversioners were competent to sue and the alienee could not resist on the ground that a nearer female reversioner was alive (Paras 2-3). B) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Binding Effect and Estoppel - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 Rule 33 - The compromise decree was not an ordinary declaratory decree but acknowledged rights of appellants and even outsiders; it became final and binding between parties; respondent drawing benefit from the transaction could not escape its disadvantage; equity prevented him from reprobating to his advantage. Held that the compromise decree could not be diluted by the mere existence of a nearer reversioner; the alienee could not resist the claim of the remote reversioner for recovery of possession (Para 3). C) Hindu Succession - Effect of Declaratory Decree on Succession - Succession Opens on Death of Alienor - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - A declaratory decree restoring property to alienor's estate meant succession opened on death of donor and was governed by law in force; the nearer reversioner Lilan could claim the property, but if she did not, it could not recoil against the remote reversioners and in favour of the stranger; Lilan died during pendency of appeal, activating appellants' dormant rights. Held that appellants were entitled to decree in exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and Article 142 of Constitution (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether remote reversioners were competent to sue on a compromise decree obtained during the lifetime of a female next reversioner who became owner under the Hindu Succession Act, and whether the alienee could resist the suit on the ground that a nearer reversioner was alive.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; Division Bench order set aside; Single Judge order restored; decree granted in favour of appellants; parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Reversioner under customary Hindu Law had right to challenge alienation if not for legal necessity
- right extended to joint family property
- remote reversioner could sue stranger
- decree in such suit enured for entire body of reversioners
- only a nearer reversioner could oust remote reversioner
- third person or alienee could not claim suit non-maintainable on ground of remote reversioner
- compromise decree was binding and not an ordinary declaratory decree
- person drawing benefit from transaction cannot escape disadvantage
- court of equity cannot uphold unfair stand
- respondent cannot reprobate to advantage
- declaratory decree restored property to alienor's estate
- succession opened on death of donor governed by law in force
- nearer reversioner could claim but if she did not
- right would not recoil against remote reversioner in favor of stranger
- death of nearer reversioner during pendency activated dormant rights of remote reversioners
- court could exercise power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and Article 142 Constitution.
