KALIPADA CHAKRABORTI AND ANOTHER versus PALANI BALA DEVI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 16-01-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
i' 
s.ci.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
503 
placed on them by the senior Judge in the High 
1952 
Court and that was the true construction of these two 
sub-sections. 
This argument, in our opinion, h~ no Commissioner 01 
l'd' 
Th 
d' 
h 
d . 
. 
b 
Income-tax 
va i ity. 
e 
epartment c ange 
its v~ew su se-
Madras ' 
quently and amended the manual. 
The mterpreta-
v. 
tion placed by the department on these sub-sections K Srinivasa" 
cannot be considered to be a proper guide in a matter and K. Gopa!an 
like this when the construction of a statute is 
involved. 
Mahajan J. 
The result is that we allow the appeal and hold 
that the answer given by the senior Judge to the 
question referred was wrong and that the answer given 
by Viswanatha Sastri J. was the correct one. In 
the circumstances of this case we would ma.ke no 
order as to costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
Agent for the respondent: M. S. K. Aiyangar. 
KALIPADA CHAKRABORTI AND ANOTHER 
19oa 
v. 
PALANI BALA DEVI AND OTHERS. 
[MUKHERJEA, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, and 
GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Hindii law-Religious endownients-Shebaiti right-Succes-
sion by widow-Nature and extent of widow's rights-Alienation by 
widow-Suit by reversioner against alienee-Liniitation-Article 
applicable-Starting point-Adverse possession against widow, 
whether adverse to reversioner-Li11iitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 
124, 141. 
Though there is an element in shebaiti right which has the 
111g\l,l (lh\l,!Mt11ristics of property, shebaitship is property of a pecu-
liar and anomalous character and it cannot come under the cate-
gory of immoveable property as it is known in law. 
On the other 
hand it is clear that a shebaiti right is a hereditary office and as 
Jan.16. 
1958 
Kalipada 
Chakraborti 
and Anoth13r 
v. 
Palani Bala 
Devi 
and Others. 
5o4 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
such comes within 
the express language of Art. 124 of the 
Limitation ... ~ct. A. suit by a reversioner for recovery of a shebaiti 
right from persons to whom a Hindu widow, who had succeeded to 
the rlght on the death of her husband, had alienated it, is governed 
by Art. 124 of the Limitation Act and not by Art. 141, and the 
possession of the alienee becomes adverse to the reversioner and 
the period of limitation begins to run against the reversioner only 
when the succession opens to him, as be does not claim under the 
widow but under the last male holder. 
Gnanasambanda v. Velit ([1900] 27 I.A. 69) explained. 
Whatever might be said about the office of a trustee, which 
car1·ies no beneficial interest with it, a shebaitship combines in it 
both the elements of office and property. As the shebaiti interest 
is heritable and follows the line of inheritance from the founder, 
when the heir is a female she must be deemed to have what is 
known as ,vidow's estate in the shebaiti interest. Ordinarily there 
are two limitations upon a widow's estate. In the first place, her 
rights of alienation are restricted and in the second place, after 
her death the property goes not to her heirs but to the heirs of the 
last male owner. The second element is present in the case of suc-
cession to the rights of a female shebait. As regards the first, it is 
quite true that regarding the powers of alienation, a female shebait 
is restricted in th8 same manner as the male shebait, but that is 
because there are certain limitations and restrictions attached to 
and inherent in the shebaiti right itself which exist irrespective 
of the fact whether the shebaitship vests in a male or a female 
heir. 
Pydigantan v. Rania Dass ([1905] I.L.R. 28 Mad. 197) and. 
Lilabati v. Bishen ([1907] 6 O.L.J. 621) commented upon. 
The rule that adverse possession against a Hindu wido\V can-
not be reckoned as adverse possession against the reversionary 
heirs, is not a special rule which rests entirely upon the particular 
provision of Art. 141 of the Limitation Act and confined in its 
operation to cases \vhich come within the purview of that article. 
It is in accordance with the ackno\\•ledged principles of Hindu law 
and the general principle that as the right of the reversioner::; is 
in the nature of spes successionis and they do not trace that title 
through or from the widow, it would be manifestly unjust if they 
are to lose their rights by the negligence or sufferance of the 
widow. 
Srinath Kuer v. Promnno Kwnar {[1883] I.L.R. 9 Cal. 934), 
Ranchordas v. Parvati °([1899] 26 I.A. 71)

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