# iliill:-1 RADHA RANI BHARGA VA v. HANUMAN PRASAD BHARGAVA

- **Citation:** [1966] 1 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-04-20
- **Bench:** A. K. Sarkar, J. R. Mudholkar, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/iliill-1-radha-rani-bharga-va-v-hanuman-prasad-bhargava-3524
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Hindu Law-Alienation by widow-Declaratory suit by reversionerComing inJo force of Hindu Succession Act-Effect-Widow's deathNan~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 impleading 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 preliminary 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\·ersioners become entitled to further relief. But in the absence of an amendment 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 respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
M. V. Goswami, for respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
S. Murthy and B. P. Maheshwari, for

## Text

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 reversionerComing inJo force of Hindu Succession Act-Effect-Widow's deathNan~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 impleading 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 preliminary 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\·ersioners become entitled to further relief. But in the absence of an amendment 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 respondents 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, dated October
IO, 1919, Mst. Bhagwati alienated her husband's estate in faVOtJr
of certain alienees.
On October 23, 1931, Mst. Jndrawati suing
in a representative capacity on behalf of the reversioners to the
estate of Kalyan Singh, instituted the suit in the Court of the
Additional Civil Judge of Mathura, out of which this appeal arises,
impleading the alienees as also Mst. Bhagwati and Mst. Radha
Rani as defendants and claiming a declaration that the alienation
was null and void against the subsequent heirs of Kalyan Singh
and that on the death of Mst. Bhagwati, his next heirs would be
entitled to get possession of the alienated properties. On August
J 2, 1941, the trial Judge decreed the suit and granted a declaration that the alienation "is void beyond the lifetime of Mst.
Bhagwati and does not bind the reversioners, who would be
entitled after the death of Mst. Bhagwati to possession over the
assets of Babu Kalyan Singh." On February 12, 1942, some of
the alienecs preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court
impleading Mst. Bhagwati, Mst. Indrawati and Mst. Radha Rani,
as respondents to the appeal. Three sons of Mst. Indrawati and
two sons of Mst. Radha Rani were also impleaded as respondents
A
B
c
D
G
II
'
•
RADHA RANI v. H. P. BHARGAVA (Bachawat, J.)
3
A Nos. 8 to 12, but by an order dated March 11, 1942, the High
Court directed that those persons would not be allowed to be
imp!eaded as respondents. During the pendency of the appeal in
the High Court, Mst. Indrawati died. By an order, dated May 11,
1950, the mgh Court directed that Mst. Radha Rani would
continue to be on the record in place of her deceased sister,
B Mst. Indrawati, and as the next reversioner to the estate of Kalyan
Singh. During the pendency of the appeal, on June 17, 1956, the
Hindu Succession Act. 1956 came into force. At the hearing of
the appeal before the .High Court, the alienees raised the preliminary contention that after the coming into force of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, there are no reversioners and no reversionC
ary rights, and a suit for a declaration that the alienation is not
binding on the reversioners is no longer maintainable. The High
Court accepted this contention, allowed the appeal and dismissed
the suit.
The High Court did not go into the other questions
raised in the appeal.
On January 2, 1958, Mst. Radha Rani
applied to the High Court for grant of a certificate under Art. 133
D
of the Constitution of India. On August 8, 1958, the High Court
granted the certificate, and on February 27, 1959, the Hjgh Court
declared the appeal admitted. On May 29, 1961, Mst. Bhagwati
died. On or about November 13, 1961, the High Court despatched
the records to this Court.
No order of the High Court under
E O.XVI, r.12(a) of the Supreme Court Rules substituting the heirs
of Mst. Bhagwati in her place was obtained, and the appeal
abated against her. On March 26, 1962, Mst. Radha Rani filed
the petition of appeal in this Court. In this petition of appeal,
Mst. Bbagwati and also the above-mentioned three sons of Mst.
Indrawati and two sons of Mst. Radba Rani were impleaded as
F
respondents. On August 24, 1964, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2219 of 1964 raising certain preliminary objections, and praying that the appeal be dismissed.
This petition was posted for hearing along with the appeal.
On the merits, the respondents have very little to say.
The
High Court took the view that the effect of ss. 14, 15 and 16 of
G the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was that after the coming into
force of the Act, there are no reversioners and no reversionary
rights. The Patna High Court in some of its earlier decisions
took the same view, but other Hjgh Courts took the view that
s. 14 did not apply to properties in the possession of alienees under
an alienation made by the Hindu female before the Act came
H
into force, and in respect of such properties, ss. 14, 15 and 16 of
the Act did not abolish the reversioners and reversionary rights.
In Gummalapura Taggina Ma:ada Kotturuswami v. Serta Veerayya
SUPllBMI! COURT REPORTS
[ 1966] l S.C.R.
and others( 1 ), this Court approved of the latter view, and this
opinion was followed
by this Court in Brahmadeo Singh and
another v. Deomani Missir and others('). In the last case, the
trial Court had decreed a suit by the reversioners for a declaration
that two sale deeds executed by a Hindu widow were without
legal necessity and not binding upon them. The Patna High Court
allowed an appeal by the alicnees and dismissed the suit holding
that by reason of the provisions of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession
Act, a suit by a reversioner for a declaration that an alienation made by a Hindu female is not binding on the reversioner is
not maintainable. From the decision of the Patna High Court the
reversioners preferred an appeal to this Court. This Court held
that the view taken by the Patna High Court following its earlier
decision in Ramsaroop Singh and others v. Hira/a/ Singh and
others(3 ) and of the Allahabad High Court in Han11man Prasad v.
lndrawati(') (the decision under appeal in this case) was incorrect,
and s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not extend to
property already alienated by a Hindu female. This Court accordingly allowed the appeal, and reversed the decree of the Patna
High Court.
The effect of this decision is that it is open to a
reversioner to maintain a suit for a declaration that an alienation
made by a Hindu female limited owner bdore the coming into
force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was without legal necessity and was not binding upon the reversioners. It follows that the
High Court was in error in holding that the present suit was not
maintainable since the coming into force of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956.
But the contesting respondents raise certain preliminary objections, and they contend that the appeal should be dismissed.
The first preliminary objection is that the th~ee so~s of Mst.
Indrawati and the two sons of Mst. Radha Ram are improperly
joined as respondents Nos. 8 to 12 in !he petition of appeal. Respondents Nos. 8 to 12 were not parlles to the. appeal bef?r~ the
High Court, nor was any order obtaine~ perm1ttmg their 1omder
in the appeal to this Court. The contestmg respondents, therefore,
pray that the names of respondents Nos. 8 to 12 be struck off from
the record.
The appellant does not object to this prayer.
We
direct accordingly that the names of respondents Nos. 8 to 12 be
struck off from the record.
(I) [1959) Supp. I S.C.R. 968, 975-976.
(2) Civil Appoal No. 13 l of 1900 decided on October IS, 1962.
(3\ A.LR. 1958 Patna 319
(4) A.l.R. 1958 All. 304.
A
•
n
c
D
E.
H
r·
' '
I<ADHA RAN! V. H. P. BHARGAVA (Bachawat, J.)
5.
A
The next preliminary objection is that the petition of appeal is.
a nullity as Mst. Bhllgwait, a dead person was impleaded as a
party respondent therein.
As Mst. Bhagwati was dead on the
date of the filing of the petition of appeal, she could not be shown
as a respondent in this appeal. But the appeal may proceed against
the other respondents on the footirig that Mst. Bhagwati is not a
B party to the appeal.
The next preliminary objection is that the appeal is defectively
constituted and is not maintainable in the absence of the heirs of
Mst. Bhagwati. The heirs of Mst. Bhagwati are Mst. Radha Rani
and the sons and daughters of Mst. Indrawati. The appellant did
c not obtain any order of Court substituting the heirs of Mst. Bhagwati
in her place.
Besides the three sons of Mst. Indrawati who are
shown as respondents Nos. 10, 11 and 12 in the petition of appeal,
Mst. Indrawati left another son, Lallu also known as Ram Prasad
and two daughters, Ram Dulari and Vimla. Lallu, Ram Dulari
and Vimla are not parties to the appeal. Respondents Nos .. 10,
D ·. 11 and 12 were improperly added as parties in the petition of
appeal and their names must be struck off. The result is that none
of the sons and daughters of Mst. Indrawati are parties to the
appeal.
It follows that all the heirs of Mst. Bhagwati are not
parties to the appeal, and the question is whether the appeal is
E
defectively constituted in their absence.
In this connection, it is necessary to consider whether the heirs of
the widow were necessary parties to a suit against the alienee either
for a declaration that the alienation is void beyond her lifetime or
for possession of the alienated property. In the case of an alienation by a Hindu widow, without legal necessity, the reversioners
were not bound to institute a declaratory suit during the lifetime
of the widow. They could wait until her death and then sue the
alienee for possession of the alienated property treating the alienation as a nullity without the intervention of any Court. See Bijoy
Gopal Mukherji v. Krishna Mahishi Debi('). To such a suit by
the reversioners for possession of the property after the death of
the widow, the heirs of the widow were not necessary parties. The
reversioners could claim no relief against the heirs of the widow
and could effectively obtain the relief claimed against the alienee
in their absence. Instead of waiting until her death, the next reversioner as representing all the reversioners of the last full owner
could institute a suit against the alienee for a declaration that the
alienation was without legal necessity and was void beyond her
lifetime. The widow was usually added as a party defendant to·
(I} (1907) l.L.R. 34 Cal. 329, 333 P.C.
6
SUPll'EME COUllT 'REPORTS
{196(,j I S.C.R.
such a suit. The widow was certainly a proper party, but was she
a necessary party to such a suit ? On behalf of the appellant it is
suggested that the widow is not a necessary party to the suit, and
in this connection, reference is made to Illustration (e) to s. 42 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1877. For the purposes of this appeal, it
is not necessary to decide this broad question; it is sufficient to
say tliat in the case of the death of the widow during the pendency
of the declaratory rnit, the heirs of the widow arc 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 alicnce in the absence of the heirs of the widow. In
view of the fact that on the death of the widow, the reversioners
become entitled to possession of the property, in a proper case leave
may be obtained to amend the plaint in the declaratory suit by
adding all the rcversioners as plaintiffs a,nd by including in the plaint
a prayer for po6Session of the property. If the plaint were amended
and the suit were converted into one for possession of the property,
clearly the heirs of the widow would not be necessary parties to
the suit The fact that the plaint is not amended makes no
difference.
The plaintiff is entitled to continue the declaratory
suit without joining the heirs of the widow as parties to the suit.
As the revcrsiorn:rs were not entitled to the possession of the
property at the time of the institution of the suit, the next reversioner could then sue for a bare declaration and the proviso to
s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 did not constitute a bar
to the suit.
The declaratory suit docs not become defective
because during the pcndency of the suit, the revcrsioncrs become
entitled to further relief.
The next reversioner is entitled to continue the declaratory suit; but in the absence of an ~mendment
of the plaint, a decree for possession of the property cannot be
passed in the suit, and if the reversioners arc to get any real
benefit, they must institute a suit for possession of the property
within the period of limil<!tion.
Had Mst. Bhagwati died dming the pendency of the suit, her
heirs would not have been necessary partirs to the suit.
The
position is not altered because the suit has been dismissed on
appeal by a decree of the High Court, and during the pendency
of the further appeal to this Court, Mst. Bhagwati died, and the
appeal against her has abated.
The appeal against the surviving
respondents has not abated, and we think that the appeal is not
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
• "
••
. . '
RADHA RANI V. H. P. BHARGAVA (Bachawat, !.)
7
A defectively constituted in the absence of the heirs of Mst. Bhagwati.
In the appeal to this Court, Mst. Radha Rani asks for the identical relief which the original plaintiff sought in the suit.
She can
get effective relief iu the appeal in the absence of the heirs of
Mst. Bhagwati just as the original plaintiff could obtain the relief
in the suit in their absence. The fact that the suit was dismissed
B by the High Court in the presence of Mst. Bhagwati makes no
difference. In the suit, the plaintiff asked for the necessary relief
against the alienees; Mst. Bhagwati was joined as a ·party to the
suit, but no relief was claimed against her personally. The High
Court dismissed the suit against the alienees.
The appellant to
this Court now seeks for a reversal of the High Court decree in
c
the presence of the alienees.
The reversal of the High Court
decree in the absence of the heirs of Mst. Bhagwati would not
lead to the passing of inconsistent and contradictory decrees. The
High Court did not pass any decree in favour of Mst. Bhagwati.
The success of this appeal cannot lead to the passing of a decree
D
by this Court in conflict with any decree passed by the High
Court in favour of Mst. Bhagwati.
The cause of appeal in this
Court survives against the surviving respondents, and the appeal
can proceed to a final adjudication in the absence of the heirs
of Mst. Bhagwati.
We hold that the appeal is not defective on account of the
E
non-joinder of necessary parties.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition
No. 2219 of 1964 is dismissed, save that we direct that the names
of respondents Nos. 8 to 12 be struck off from the record.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree,
dated September 25, 1957, of the High Court are set aside, and
F
First Appeal No. 232 of 1942 must now be heard on the merits
by the High Court.
The contesting respondents must pay to the
appellant the costs in this Court.
Appeal al/awed.
G