LexNATVARLAL PUNJABHAI AND ANOTHER versus DADUBHAI MANUBHAI AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 339 Court for re-hearing and delivery of a proper judg- ment. 1953; November 23. BosE J.-The order for stay dated the 25th May, 1953, has now expended itself. The death sentence cannot be carried out as there is no valid decision of the appeal and no valid confirmation. The position regarding that is as it w:as when the appeal was made to the· High Court. The second and the third appellants will surrender to their bail as they are now relegated to the position which they occupied when the appeal was filed in the High Court. Appeal allowed. Agent for the appellant : N aunit Lal. Agent for the respondent:. 0. P. Lal. 1963 Surendra Singh and Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. Bose J. NATVARLAL PUNJABHAI AND ANOTHER 1953 v. , DADUBHAI MANUBHAI AND OTHERS. [MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE and BHAGWATI JJ.] Hind1i law-Widow-Surrender of estate after third persons have acquired title by adverse possession against widow-Validity-- Right of reversioner to recover possession before death of widow- Legal nature of surrender-Power of court to irnpose conditions on gronnds of eq1iity. Where a Hindu widow surrenders her widow's estate to the reversioners, after a third person ha.s acquired title to the proper- ties by adverse possession against her, the reversioners are entitled to recover possession of the properties from that person immedi- ately as heirs of the last male holder. The person in adverse possession is not entitled to remain in possession till the death of the widow. So far as the legal consequences are concern~d there is no material difference in this respect between an adoption and an act of surrender by the widow. As a surrender by a Hindu widow does not con1'ey any title to the reversioners, but is only a voluntary act of self-effacement by the widow, she can make a valid surrender under Hindu law even after another pei;son has acquired title by adverse possession against her. The reversioners do not take the property subject to the rights created by the widow. Surrender by the widow and acceptance by the reversioner are not matters of contract. The estate vests in the reversioner by operation of law without any act of acceptance on the part of the reversioner. t5 Nov. 18. 1953 Natvarlal Punjabhai and Another v. Dadubhai Manubhai and Others. 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] The view that, as the widow herself is incapable of disputing the title of the alienee, or of the person who has obtained title by adverse possession, a like disability attaches to the reversioner, is also unsound as the reversioner does not derive title from the widow even in the case of a surrender. Assuming that the court has power to impose conditions on the reversioners' right to recover possession during the lifetime of the widow on considerations of equity 1 justice and good conscience and to prevent the widow, by her own act, from prejudicing the interests she has created, no such equitable considerations arise in favour of persons who have come upon the land a.s trespassers and claim title by adverse possession. Snbbamma v. S11brahmanyam (I.L.R. 39 Mad. 1035), S11mdra. siva v. Viyyamma (I.L.R. 48 Mad. 933), Arnnachala v. Ari<1nnaa. (LL.R. 1953 Mad. 550), Lachmi v. Lachho (I.L.R. 49 All. 334) and Basndeo v. Baiduanath (A.LR. 1935 Pat. 175) disapproved. Ram Krishna v. Ka1tsalya (40 C.W.N. 208), Ragh11raj Singh v. Bab" Singh (A.LR. 1952 All. 875) approved. Vaidyanatha v. Savitri (I.L.R. 4 l Mad. 75) commented upon. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1953. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 31st March, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Chagla C.J., Weston and Dixit JJ.) in First Appeal No. 175 of 1946, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 28th Februarv, 1946, of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Broach in Special Suit No. 9 of 1941. K. S. Krishnaswamy Aiyanga,r (H.J. Umrigar, with him) for the appellants. 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India· (J. B. Dadachanji, with him) for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 1953. November 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MURHERJEA J.-This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court, dated the 31st March, 1949, confirming, on appeal, the deci- sion of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Broach, in Special Suit No. 9 of 1941. The facts of the case, though a bit lo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.