RADHA RANI BHARGA VA versus HANUMAN PRASAD BHARGAVA

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 20-04-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR, R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
c 
' 
D 
E 
F 
'I'_, 
G 
' 
' • 
.. 
H 
iliill:-1 
RADHA RANI BHARGA VA 
v. 
HANUMAN PRASAD BHARGAVA 
April 20, 1965 
1 
[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Alienation by widow-Declaratory suit by reversioner-
Coming inJo force of Hindu Succession Act-Effect-Widow's death-
Nan~joinder of her heirs-Continuance of suit. 
A widow alienated her husband's estate and one of her danghters in a 
representative capacity on behalf of the reversioners instituted a suit implead-
ing the alienees, the widow and her sister the appellant, as defendants, for 
a declaration that the alienation was null and void. The suit was decreed, 
and the alienees preferred an appeal to the High Court impleading the 
widow, and her two daughters as respondents. During the pendency of the 
appeal the plaintiff died and the High Court directed that her sister tho 
appellant would continue to be on record in her place. During the pendency 
of the appeal the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, and the 
High Court alloweic! the appeal, holding that there were no reversioners and 
no reversionary rights after the Act came into force. 
On the appellant'• 
application, certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution was granted. 
After the appeal was declared admitted, the widow died and no order 
of the High Court under 0. VXI r. 12(a) of the Supreme Court Rules 
substituting the heirs of the widow in her place was obtained. Later the 
appellant filed petition of appeal in this Court, in Which, the widow was 
a\S<> impleaded as a respondent. 
The alienee-respondents raised a preli-
minary objection that the widow could not be shown as respondent in this 
appeal, as she was dead on the date of the filing of the appeal, and 
consequently the appeal was defectively constituted and not maintainable 
in the absence of the widow's heirs. 
HELD : On merits the appeal must be allowed. 
Itis open to a reversioner to maintain a suit for a declaration that an 
alienation made by a Hindu female limited owner before the coming into 
force of the Hindu Succession Act, was without legal necessity and was 
not binding upon the reversioners. [4 D-E] 
Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra Veeryya [1959] 
Snpp. 1 S.C.R. 968 and Brahmadeo Singh v . . Deomanl Missir, C.A No. 
130/60, dated 15-10-62, followed. 
The appeal shoold proceed against the other respondents on the footing 
that the widow was not a party to the appeal. [5 E] 
In the case of the death of the widow during the pendency of the 
declaratory suit, the heirs of the widow are not necessary parties to 
the suit. Though the widow was joined as a party to the suit, no relief 
was claimed against her personally. 
On the death of the widow the 
entire estate of the last full owner is represented by the plaintiff suing 
in a representative capacity on behalf of all the reversioners, and the 
plaintiff can get effective relief against the alienee in the absence of the 
heira of the widow. 
The plaintiff is entitled to continue the declaratory 
suit without joining the heirs of the widow as parties to the suit. [6 B-EJ 
As the re\-·ersioners were not entitled to the possession of the property 
at the time of the institution of rt.he suit, the next reversioner could then 
2 
SUPRJIME OOUllT REPORTS 
[1966) I S.C.R. 
sue for a bare declaration and the proviso to a. 42 of the Specific 11.dicf 
Act, did not constitute a bar to the &uit. 
The declaratory suit docs 
not become defective beca1L<;e during the pendency of the suit, the re\·er-
sioners become entitled to further relief. But in the absence of an amend-
ment of the plaint, a decree for J><'SS"'L'ion of the property can.x be 
passed in the suit, and if the rever.noners are to get any real benent, they 
must institute a suit for po11Seseion of the property within the period of 
lim;!ation. [6 E-0] 
C1v1L ArrELLA rn JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 579 of 
1961. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 25, 
1957, of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 232 of 
1942. 
Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
S. T. Desai, Rameshwar Nath and S. N. And/ey, for respon-
dents Nos. 1 and 3. 
M. V. Goswami, for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 
S. Murthy and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bacbawat, J. 
One Kalyan Singh died sonless in the year 1918 
leaving him surviving his widow, Mst. Bhagwati and two daughters. 
Mst. lndrawati and Mst. Radha Rani. By a deed, d

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