LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 18 September 2026

Can a person declared a reversioner before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 claim rights as a reversioner after its commencement?

VEERAMUTHU NAICKER v. RANGARAJU NAIDU(DECSD.,)
SA.1049/1992 · 2026:MHC:3855 · S.A. No.1049 of 1992
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

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.

Headnote

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 account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 27Though the plaintiff was declared as a reversioner of Pottu alias Duraisamy Naidu in the earlier proceedings, the same is not valid in view of the advent of the H.S. Act. Moreover, 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 is subject to the female's limited estate and accrues only upon her demise. In such a scenario, the final outcome of the earlier Suit proceedings declaring the plaintiff herein along with two others as reversioners cannot be considered valid. In this regard, reference may be made to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daya Singh's Case [cited supra] relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, wherein it was held thus: "5. That position may now be considered. It was authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council in its decision in Moniram Kolita v. KerryKolitany [ILR 5 Cal 776, 789], that :
Paragraph 33As regards the additional Substantial Question of Law (b), as held above, the plaintiff cannot claim rights as a reversioner with the advent of the H.S. Act. Further, the widows' right over Suit 'B' schedule properties enlarged from limited estate to absolute estate with the advent of the H.S. Act in view of Section 14 (1) thereof and hence, they are entitled to dispose of the same as they desire.
Acts & Sections
s.14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956s.43 Transfer of Property Act, 1882

One 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is a female Hindu possessed of property under s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 where she has a legal right to possess it?Does the estoppel under s.43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 apply only against the unauthorised person who makes the transfer?Is a suit simpliciter for recovery of possession maintainable without a declaration of title where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections