Skip to content


Hardwar Rai and anr. Vs. Balram Rai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.959
AppellantHardwar Rai and anr.
RespondentBalram Rai
Excerpt:
hindu law - widow--adverse--possession against widow--reversioner's right not affected. - - 1. this appeal must, in my opinion, fail......surviving owner of the joint family property. bhujawan had a widow who died some 19 years ago. hira's widow was musammat rajwanti who died in 1910. she made certain gifts of the property in favour of the defendants-appellants. those defendants also claimed to be the sons of a daughter of hira but it has been found that they are not so. it is upon the death of musammat rajwanti in 1910 that the plaintiffs, who are admittedly the reversioners to the estate of hira, claimed the property. it is urged that musammat parkali, the widow of bhujawan was in adverse possession as against musammat rajwanti for more than 12 years in respect of half the property and that, therefore, the plaintiffs' claim as regards one-half of the property must be dismissed. this contention, is, in my opinion,.....
Judgment:

Banerji, J.

1. This appeal must, in my opinion, fail. The suit was brought by certain reversioners to recover property which originally belonged to two brothers, Bhujawan and Hira. It has been found that they formed a joint family and that Hira survived Bhujawan. So that he was the last surviving owner of the joint family property. Bhujawan had a widow who died some 19 years ago. Hira's widow was Musammat Rajwanti who died in 1910. She made certain gifts of the property in favour of the defendants-appellants. Those defendants also claimed to be the sons of a daughter of Hira but it has been found that they are not so. It is upon the death of Musammat Rajwanti in 1910 that the plaintiffs, who are admittedly the reversioners to the estate of Hira, claimed the property. It is urged that Musammat Parkali, the widow of Bhujawan was in adverse possession as against Musammat Rajwanti for more than 12 years in respect of half the property and that, therefore, the plaintiffs' claim as regards one-half of the property must be dismissed. This contention, is, in my opinion, untenable because adverse possession against the widow cannot bar the reversioner whose title accrued from the date of the widow's death. This was so held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Runchordas Vardi mandas v. Parvatibai 23 B. 725 : 26 I.A. 71 which was followed by this Court in Amrit Dhar v. Bindesri Prosad 23 A. 418; A.W.N. (1901) 133 and subsequent cases. I dismiss the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //