Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a declaratory suit instituted by Mst. Indrawati, daughter of Kalyan Singh, in a representative capacity on behalf of reversioners to challenge an alienation made by the widow Mst. Bhagwati. Kalyan Singh died sonless in 1918 leaving his widow and two daughters, Mst. Indrawati and Mst. Radha Rani. By a deed dated October 10, 1919, the widow alienated her husband's estate without legal necessity. On October 23, 1931, Mst. Indrawati filed the suit in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura, impleading the alienees, the widow, and her sister Mst. Radha Rani, seeking a declaration that the alienation was null and void against subsequent heirs. The trial court decreed the suit on August 12, 1941, declaring the alienation void beyond the lifetime of the widow. Some alienees appealed to the Allahabad High Court. During the appeal, Mst. Indrawati died, and by order dated May 11, 1950, the High Court directed Mst. Radha Rani to continue on record as the next reversioner. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on June 17, 1956. The High Court on September 25, 1957 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, accepting the alienees' preliminary contention that after the Act there were no reversioners or reversionary rights. Radha Rani obtained a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution; the High Court declared the appeal admitted on February 27, 1959. The widow Mst. Bhagwati died on May 29, 1961, and no substitution of her heirs was obtained under Order XVI Rule 12(a) of the Supreme Court Rules. On March 26, 1962, Radha Rani filed a petition of appeal in the Supreme Court, impleading the deceased widow and certain sons of the daughters as respondents. Respondents filed preliminary objections. The core legal issues were whether the declaratory suit remained maintainable after the Hindu Succession Act, whether the widow's heirs were necessary parties, whether impleading a dead person nullified the appeal, whether respondents not parties below could be joined, and whether the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act barred the suit. The alienees argued that the Act abolished reversionary rights and the suit was not maintainable; that the appeal was a nullity because the widow was dead at filing; and that the heirs of the widow were not joined. The appellant relied on Supreme Court decisions holding that Section 14 did not apply to already alienated property and that a reversioner could maintain the suit. The Supreme Court followed Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra Veeravya and Brahmadeo Singh v. Deomani Missir, holding that the Hindu Succession Act did not extinguish reversionary rights in property alienated before the Act. The Court directed striking off respondents Nos. 8 to 12 as improperly joined. It held that impleading the dead widow did not nullify the appeal, which could proceed against the other respondents. On the necessity of the widow's heirs, the Court held they were not necessary parties because no relief was claimed against the widow personally and the reversioner representing the entire estate could obtain effective relief against the alienee alone. On the Specific Relief Act proviso, the Court held that at institution the reversioners were not entitled to possession, so a bare declaration suit was maintainable; the suit did not become defective by the subsequent accrual of a right to further relief, but no decree for possession could be passed without amendment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court decree, and held the declaratory suit maintainable, subject to striking off improperly joined respondents and excluding the deceased widow. It clarified that reversioners must institute a separate suit for possession within the period of limitation to obtain actual relief.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Alienation by Hindu widow - Reversioner's declaratory suit - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sections 14, 15, 16 - The suit was filed by a reversioner in representative capacity challenging widow's alienation as without legal necessity. The High Court dismissed the suit holding that no reversioners or reversionary rights remained after the Act came into force. Held that Section 14 did not apply to property already alienated by a Hindu female and the reversioner could maintain the suit for declaration, following Supreme Court precedents in Gummalapura and Brahmadeo Singh (Para 4). B) Civil Procedure - Necessary parties - Death of widow during pendency - General principle of representative suit - Since no relief was claimed against the widow personally and the entire estate of the last full owner is represented by the reversioner suing in representative capacity, the plaintiff can continue the declaratory suit without joining the heirs of the widow. The appeal is not defectively constituted in their absence, and the reversioner can obtain effective relief against the alienee alone (Para 6). C) Civil Procedure - Misjoinder and nullity - Impleading dead person as respondent - No specific act section - The petition of appeal impleaded Mst. Bhagwati, who had died before filing, but the Court held the appeal may proceed against the other respondents on the footing that she was not a party. Respondents Nos. 8 to 12, who were not parties to the High Court appeal and had no order for joinder, were directed to be struck off from the record (Para 5). D) Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 42 - Declaratory suit and bar of proviso - At the time of institution, reversioners were not entitled to possession, so a suit for bare declaration was maintainable and the proviso did not constitute a bar. The declaratory suit does not become defective because during pendency the reversioners become entitled to further relief, but in the absence of an amendment of the plaint no decree for possession can be passed; reversioners must institute a separate suit for possession within limitation (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a reversioner's declaratory suit challenging a pre-1956 alienation by a Hindu widow remains maintainable after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; whether heirs of the deceased widow are necessary parties; whether impleading a dead person as respondent nullifies the appeal; whether respondents not parties to the lower court can be joined without court order; and whether the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 bars the suit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment, and held that the declaratory suit was maintainable. It directed that respondents Nos. 8 to 12 be struck off from the record, that the appeal proceed against the other respondents excluding the deceased widow, and that the reversioner could continue the declaratory suit without joining the widow's heirs. It clarified that no decree for possession could be granted without amendment of the plaint and that the reversioners, to obtain actual benefit, must institute a separate suit for possession within the period of limitation.
Law Points
- A reversioner can maintain a declaratory suit challenging an alienation made by a Hindu female limited owner before the Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- as without legal necessity and not binding on reversioners
- Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act
- 1956 does not apply to property already alienated by a Hindu female
- heirs of a deceased widow are not necessary parties to a declaratory suit or appeal where no relief is claimed against the widow personally and the reversioner sues in representative capacity
- a declaratory suit under proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act
- 1877 is maintainable where reversioners were not entitled to possession at the time of institution
- but a decree for possession cannot be granted without amendment of the plaint.
