Is a suit simpliciter for recovery of possession maintainable without a declaration of title where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title?

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)