M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.)This appeal was referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of D. Basu. J. and myself for decision on the following two questions :--
(1) Whether the reversioner of a Hindu widow or a limited heir, is a person claiming under the Hindu widow or the limited heir within the meaning of the expression "the transferor or any person claiming under him" as contained in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ? (2) Whether the case of Bhopal Chandra Sarkar v. Jagad Bhusan Sarkar, ILR (1943) 1 Cal 66 = (AIR 1943 Cal 344) was correctly decided 2

(2.)As the instant appeal 5s a Second Appeal, under Rule 2 of Chap. VI of the Appellate Side Rules, the entire appeal was required to be referred to the Full Bench for the disposal of the same by the Full Bench; the reference was therefore, defective. Under these circumstances, this Full Bench remitted back the appeal to the Division Bench and the Division Bench consisting of Arun Kumar Mukherjea, J. and myself have now referred the entire appeal to the Full Bench in accordance with Rule 2 of Chapter VI of the Appellate Side Rules.
(3.)The judgment of the Division Bench whereby the above two questions were referred to the Full Bench, was delivered by me. The points which were argued on behalf of the parties before the Division Bench, have also been argued before the Full Bench. All these points including the aforesaid two questions have been considered by me in my judgment of the Division Bench, After considering the respective contentions of the parties, I do not find any reason to change my view as expressed in my judgment in the Division Bench on these points. It may be stated here, that two other new points have been raised by Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents. Before I refer to and consider these two points, I set out below my judgment in the Division Bench and adopt the same as my judgment in the Full Bench regarding the points dealt with therein :--