GOBARDHAN MAHTON Vs. HARIRAM MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. The plaintiff respondent Hari Ram Mahto brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that the sale deed dated the llth of November, 1947 (Ext. C) by Mosmt. kgesri, widow of the last male holder, was without consideration or legal necessity and hence not binding on the plaintiff. The .plaintiff.claimed reversionary right to institute the suit for the above declaration, being the grandson of Mahadeo Mahto, husband of Mosmt. Jagesri. It may be stated that the sale deed in question was executed both by Mosmt. Jagesri and her daughter Mosmt. Pankalia, mother of the plaintiff and daughter of Mahadeo Mahto.

(2.) The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and defendant No. 1, the vendee under Ext.'C, preferred an appeal to this Court against the decision of the Trial Court. The appeal, being First Appeal No. 73 of 1950, was dismissed by a learned single Judge whereupon the present appeal under Letters Patent has been filed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appeal was delivered on the 12th August, 1958.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a number of questions before us and cited authorities in support of each one of his contentions. In our opinion, however, it is not necessary to refer to them all in view of the fact that this appeal can be disposed of conclusively by taking into consideration the death of Mosmt. Jagesri. She died on the 30th July, 1960, during the pendency of this Letters Patent Appeal in this Court. On the 25th August, 1960, the Registrar passed an order that Jagesri (respondent No. 1) was dead and her heir respondent No. 3, Mosmt. Pankalia, her daughter, was already on the record. This has given rise to a situation which is altogether new in course of Ihis litigation. I have already mentioned that Ext. c, the sale deed, in favour of the appellant was executed both by Mosm. Jagesri, the widow of Mahadeo Mahto, and Mosmt. Pankalia, his daughter. After the death of Mosmt. Jagesri, Mosmt. Pankalia would succeed as the heir of Mahadeo Mahto. if, however, this event had taken place prior to the passing of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Act 30 of 1956), the suit of the plaintiff as the grandson of Mahadeo Mah'to would still be maintainable inasmuch as the daughter would be only a limited heir under the Hindu law. After the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, however, the daughter would succeed as an absolute heir and any property to be inherited by a Hindu female would be held to be an absolute interest. In that view of the matter, the suit by the plaintiff would not be maintainable inasmuch as if the plaintiff could succeed, he would do so after the death of the mother as an heir and not as a reversioner; Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act having already terminated the status of re-versioners' as such under the Hindu law.