KALISHANKER DAS AND ANOTHER versus DHIRENDRA NA TH P ATRA AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 21-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. 
:S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
467 
KALISHANKER DAS AND ANOTHER 
v. 
DHIRENDRA NA TH P ATRA AND OTHERS. 
[MuKHERJEA, V1v1AN BosE and GttuLAM HASAN JJ.] 
Hindu 
law-Widow's 
.71as 
got 
vested right , in 
.reversioner-Whether claims 
preceding him. 
estate-Nature .of-Whether anybody 
the estate during her life-time-Actual 
through 
the 
presumptive 
reversioner 
It is a well-settle<l doctrine of Hin<lu law 
that 
nobody has a 
vested right so long as the widow is alive and the eventual 
rever-
-sioner does not claim through any one who went before him. 
The interest of a Hindu widow in the properties inherited by 
her bears no analogy 
or resemblance 
to what may be described as 
.an equitable estate 
in English law and which cannot be followed 
in the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value 
without 
notice. 
A Hindu widow has got only qualified proprietorship in her estate 
which she can alienate 
only when there is justifying necessity and 
the restrictions on her powers 
of alienation are inseparable 
from 
her estate. 
For legal 
necessity 
she 
can 
convey 
to another an 
.absolute 
title to the property vested in her. If there is 
no 
legal 
necessity the transferee gets 
only the widow's estate which is not 
<even 
an indefeasible 
life estate for it 
can 
come to an end not 
merely on 
her death 
but on the happening of other contingencies 
like re-marriage, adoption, etc. H an alienee from a Hindu widow 
succeeds in establishing 
that 
there was legal necessity 
for 
trans-
fer, 
he is 
completely 
protected 
and it is 
immaterial 
that the 
necessity was brought about by the mismanagement of the limited 
owner herself. 
Even if there 
is 
no necessity 
in fact, but it is 
proved that there was representation of necessity and 
the 
alienee 
.after making bana fide enquiries 
satisfied 
himself as best as he 
rnuld that such necessity existed, the actual 
existence of a 
legal 
necessity is not a condition precedent to the validity of the 
sale. 
'Therefore if there is no necessity in fact or if the alienee could not 
prove that he made bona fide enquiries and was satisfied about its 
existence, the transfer is 
not void but the transferee would get 
.only the widow's estate in the property which does not in any way 
·affect the interest of the reversioner. 
Debi Prasad Chowdhury v. Golap Bhagat (I.L.R. 40 Cal. 721 ), 
Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden ( 46 I.A. 72), 
Bajrangi 
'" Manokarnika (35 I.A. I), The Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly 
Venkata (8 M. I.A. 529) and Hunoomanpersaud Pandey v. Musam-
mat Babooee Munraj Koonweree (6 M.I.A. 393) referred to. 
C1v1L 
APPELLATE 
JuR1so1cTIOK : 
Civil 
No. 108 of 1952. 
Appeal 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 
29th March, 1950. of the High Court of Judicature at 
1954 
May21 
1954 
K alishanker Das 
and ATlother 
v. 
Dhirendra Nath 
Patra 
and Others. 
468 
- SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
Calcutta in Appeal from Original Decree No. 121 of 
1945 arising from the Decree dated the 22nd December,_ 
1944, of the Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore, in 
Title Suit No. 70 of 1941. 
N. C. Chatterjee (C. N. Laik, D. N. Mukherjee an& 
Sukumar Chose, with him) for the appellants. 
S. P. Sinha (B. B, Haldar and S. C. Bannerji, with, 
him) for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. 
1954. May 21. 
The Judgment of the Court was-
delivered by 
MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal, which has come before-
us, on a certificate granted by the High Court of 
Calcutta, under article 133(1) of the Constitution. is-
directed against a judgment and decree of a Division-
Bench of that Court dated the 29th March, 
1950~ 
affirming, on appeal, those of the Subordinate Judge,_ 
Fourth Court, Alipore, passed in Title Suit No. 70• 
of 1941. 
The appellants before us are the heirs and legal 
representatives of the original defendant N9. 3 in the-
suit, which _was commenced. by the plaintiffs respond-
ents 
to recover possession of the property in dispute,. 
on establishment of their title, as reversionary heirs of 
one 
Haripada Patra, after the death of his mother 
Rashmoni, who got the property in the restricted rights 
of a Hindu_ female heir on Haripada's death. To· 
appreciate the contentions that have been raised by 
the parties to this appeal it would be necessary to· 
narrate the material facts in chronological order. 
The property in suit which is premises No. 6 Dwarik 
Ghose' s Lane situated 
in 
the 
suburb of 
Calcutta· 
admittedly formed part of the estate of one Mahendra·

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