1953 (1) TMI 22 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation.
2. Applicability of Article 124 or Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act.
3. Adverse possession against a Hindu widow and its effect on reversionary heirs.
4. Legal characteristics of shebaiti rights and their classification under the Limitation Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation:

The primary issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, while the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court applied Article 124 of the Limitation Act, determining that the defendant and her predecessors had been in possession of the hereditary office of the shebait adversely to the plaintiffs for more than 12 years before the suit was filed. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' suit was governed by Article 124 or Article 141 of the Limitation Act.

2. Applicability of Article 124 or Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act:

The Supreme Court had to decide whether Article 124 or Article 141 of the Limitation Act applied to this case. If Article 141 applied, the plaintiffs' suit would be within time, but if Article 124 applied, the court had to determine when the defendant's possession became adverse to the plaintiffs. The court noted that the alienation of the shebaiti right by a shebait in favor of a stranger is void under Hindu law, making the alienee a trespasser from the beginning. The plaintiffs argued that adverse possession against the widow would not bar the reversioners, relying on the principle underlying Article 141. The defendants contended that Article 141 did not apply and that adverse possession against the widow would bar the reversioners.

3. Adverse possession against a Hindu widow and its effect on reversionary heirs:

The court examined whether adverse possession against a Hindu widow could be considered adverse possession against her reversionary heirs. The plaintiffs argued that adverse possession against the widow would not bar the reversioners, as they do not derive their title through her. The defendants argued that adverse possession against the widow would bar the reversioners, relying on the principle of representation of the estate by the widow. The court noted that Article 141 of the Limitation Act, introduced in 1871, specifically addressed suits by reversioners for recovery of possession of property held by a Hindu widow, indicating a deliberate change by the legislature.

4. Legal characteristics of shebaiti rights and their classification under the Limitation Act:

The court also had to consider the legal characteristics of shebaiti rights and whether they could be classified as immovable property under the Limitation Act. The High Court had held that the rights of a female shebait are not more restricted than those of a male shebait, and thus Article 141 did not apply. The Supreme Court noted that shebaitship combines elements of both office and property, but it is difficult to classify it as immovable property. The court concluded that Article 124, which specifically covers hereditary offices, was the appropriate article to apply.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that Article 124 of the Limitation Act applied to the case, not Article 141. The court determined that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation, as the possession of the shebaiti office by the defendant and her predecessors could not be considered adverse to the plaintiffs until the death of the widow. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and restored the trial judge's decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the one-third shebaiti right and mesne profits from the date of the widow's death.