Can a person declared a reversioner before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 claim rights as a reversioner after its commencement?
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel
A person declared a reversioner before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot claim rights as a reversioner after its commencement.
No. A person declared a reversioner before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot claim rights as a reversioner after its commencement. The claim of a presumptive reversioner is merely based on spes successionis or a chance of succession and there is no vested or accrued right; the rights of a reversioner are subject to the female's limited estate and accrue only upon her demise. Once that estate was enlarged into an absolute estate by the Act, the earlier declaration could not be treated as valid.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.14(1) — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.43 — Widow's limited estate — Possession in law — Reversioner — Recovery of possession — Declaration of title — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.14(1) — "Possessed" — Possession in law is enough — Held: A female Hindu is possessed of property under s.14(1) where she has a legal right to possess it, actual physical possession being unnecessary; her limited estate thereupon blossoms into an absolute one. (¶25, 26) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Reversioner — Status extinguished by the Act — Held further: A person declared a reversioner before the Act cannot claim rights as a reversioner after its commencement, the claim of a presumptive reversioner being a mere chance of succession. (¶27, 33) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.43 — Estoppel operates against the transferor alone — Held further: The estoppel under s.43 applies only against the unauthorised person who makes the transfer, and cannot be applied against a plaintiff claiming on his own title. (¶31) Recovery of possession — Declaration of title — Maintainability — Held further: A suit simpliciter for recovery of possession is not maintainable without a declaration of title where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title. Second Appeal allowed. (¶32, 35)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of VEERAMUTHU NAICKER v. RANGARAJU NAIDU(DECSD.,) — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India