9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were remote reversioners were competent to sue on the compromise decree obtained by them in lifetime of the female next reversioner who become owner under the Hindu Succession Act. It has been found by all the Courts below that one Sunder was owner of extensive property which were in nature of a joint family property. He executed a gift in favour of a distant collateral Brij Lal which was challenged by the appellants who were the remote reversions. The suit was compromised between parties that is the appellants, Sunder the alienor and Brij Lal, the alinee, and his brothers. As a result of the compromise 15 Kanals and 15 Marias i.e., l/8th share of the land which had been the subject of gift by Sunder in favour of Brij Lal was to be give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btained by the appellants was declaratory which enured even the benefit of Smt. Lilan it did not prevent Brij from taking the objection that the decree being for the benefit for entire body of reversioners and Smt. Lilan being nearer than the appellants, the suit was liable to be dismissed. A reversioner under customary Hindu Law had a right to challenge-the alienation if it was not for legal necessity. Such a right vested in respect of joint family property as well. The appellants, who were remote rever-sioners, therefore, could file the suit against a stranger. Even the High Court did not dispute that the suit filed by the remote reversioner was maintainable. A decree in such suit against alienation enured for the benefit of the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondent cannot be permitted to reprobate to his advantage. The binding effect of the compromise decree could not be taken away as it was to operate after death of the donor. May be a person with a better right, for instance Lilan, could sue the appellants and claim the property being nearer but that could not dilute either the effect of the compromise decree, even though in nature of a declaratory decree, not it could clothe the alinee with any right to resist the claim of the remote reversioner for recovery of possession on the ground that the next reversioner being alive the suit was not maintainable. The recovery of possession by the appellants could even be for the benefit of all the reversioners including the next reversioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to compensation and any other person had not right to it. In Giani Ram (supra), it was held by this Court that the effect of such a declaratory decree is that the property is reverted to alienors estate. Therefore, when succession opened on the death of Sunder, the donor, it would have been governed by the law in force. Lilan being sister and nearer than the appellants could claim by virtue of the decree that the right and interest of alienor devolved on her. But if she did not, it could not recoil against the appellants and in favour of stranger. Further, Lilan undisputedly died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Therefore, the rights of the appellants even if they were dormant due to nearer reversioner being alive got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
