DINDYAL & ANR. versus RAJARAM

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 17-04-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

298 
DINDY AL & ANR. 
v. 
RAJARAM 
April 17, 1970 
[J, C. SHAH, K. S'.' HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 195C, s. 14-Widow who has made gift 
of 
husband's property to daughter and ther•after reoccupied it as trespa.1·ser 
whether acquires rights of full ownership under s. 14(2)-"Po.isessed" in 
s. 14( I) meani11·11 of. 
C.P. Tenancy Act, 1920, s. 104( 1) read with Art. /, Second Sc/12dule-
Article is Inapplicable when suit is filed not as dispossei·sed tenant but as 
reversioner vf last male. ho/d.,-Act does not enable trespassers on tenancy 
land to acquire right against third parties by adverse posses·sion. 
The defendants were the grandsons of G's brother between whom and 
G there had been division of Hindll undivided family property. 
G died 
in 1920 and his widow L entered into possession of his property, _namely, 
land held in tenancy in the former Central Provinces. 
In !936 L made 
a gift of the property to her daughter N. Thereupon K, G's daughter by 
his pre-deceased wife, filed a suit seeking declaration that the 
gift-deed 
was not binding on her. 
The suit was decreed in '.937. N died in 1941 
and thereafter N's children entered into possession of the property. 
K 
died in 1943. 
The possession of N's children continued 
till 
June 
I, 
1951 when L wrongfully dispossessed them under the guise of enforcing 
the decree obtained by K. 
Thereafter L continued in exclusive possession 
of the suit property. 
Jn !952 she gifted some of those properties to one 
R and the remaining properties she gifted to the defendants in J 957. She 
died in 1960. 
Meanwhile in 1956 the Hindu succession Act had com<> 
into force. 
The plaintiff after the death of L filed a suit claiming 
the 
properties in question as daughter's son and reversioner of G. 
The 
suit 
was decreed and the decree was upheld by the High Court. 
The High 
Court .can1e to the conclusion that L's possession 
of the suit 
properties 
after June 1, 1951 was that of a trespasser, and as such she did not be-
come an absolute o\\:ner of those properties on tne coming into force of 
the Hindu Succession Act, It also helc'. that the plaintiff became entitled to 
the suit properties on the death of L as the nearest reversioner of G. In 
appeal to this Court by special leave it was contended on behalf of the 
appellants : 
(i) 
that 
as 
soon 
as 
L 
took 
posse>Sion 
of 
the 
suit properties fron1 the children of N. her previous possession as widow 
of G sprang up again and thereafter she was holding the properties in her 
capacity as the widO\\" of G and hence she became absolute owner of those 
properties when the Hindu Succession. Act came into force; (ii) that the 
suit for possession of a holding by a person cf3fming to be tenant fron1 
which he had been dispossessed could be filed under s. 104(1) of the C.P. 
Tenancy Act, 1920 read with Art. 
I of the Second Schedule 
thereto 
onJy \vithin three years of the- date of dispossession., and the present suit 
not having been filed within that period. the result must be that L had 
acquired title to the suit pi'operties by adverse possession. 
HELD : (i) The gift made bv L and in 'avour N was a valid gift 
and N cam'~ into possession of the suit properties On the ~tren!?'th of that 
gift. 
L could have no interest in those properties thereafter. 
T'ierefore. 
when L 1.ook poc;.;;c:;sion of tho~e properties in 1951, she did so as a tres~ 
passer. and she continued in poc;•ession thereafter only as a trespasser. 
As such, he cou!d not be held to have acquired any ri.e:ht under the Hindu 
Succcss:~ori 
A:.:t becau<;e before an.y property can be· said to be "possessed" 
c· 
D 
E 
F' 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DEENDAYAL v. RAJARAM (Hegde, !.) 
299 
by a Hindu woman as provided ins. 14(1) of the Hindu Sucoession Act. 
two things are necessary (a) she must have a right to 1he possession of 
that property and (b) she must have been in possession of that property 
either actually or constructively. (301 C-El 
' 
S. S. Munnia Lal v. S.S. Rajkumar & Ors. [1962] Supp, 3 S.C.R. 41S 
and Kuldip Singh & Ors. v. Surain Singh & Ors. C.A. No. 138/64 dt. 
1-5-67. rehed on. 
(ii) Article 1 of the Second Schedule read with s. 104(1) of 
the 
C.P. Tenancy 'Act was not applicable to the· present suit as it had been 
filed n.ot on the basis of wro11gful dispossession of a tenant but o.n the 
basis of reversionary rights. There was nothing in the C.P. Tenancy Act 
to enable a trespasser to impose himself as a t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.