Bachawat, J. - (1.) One Kalyan Singh died sonless in the year 1918 leaving him surviving his widow, Mst. Bhagwati and two daughters, Mst. Indrawati and Mst. Radha Rani. By a deed dated October 10, 1919, Mst. Bhagwati alienated her husband's estate in favour of certain alienees. On October 23, 1931, Mst. Indrawati suing in a representative capacity on behalf of the reversioners to the estate of Kalyan Singh, instituted the suit in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge of Mathura, out of which this appeal arises, impleading the alienees as also Mst. Bhagwati and Mst. Radha Rani as defendants and claiming a declaration that the alienation was null and void against the subsequent heirs of Kalyan Singh and that on the death of Mst. Bhagwati, his next heirs would be entitled to get possession of the alienated properties. On August 12, 1941 the trial Judge decreed the suit and granted a declaration that the alienation "is void beyond the life-time of Mst. Bhagwati and does not bind the reversioners, who would be entitled after the death of Mst. Bhagwati to possession over the assets of Babu Kalyan Singh." On February 12, 1942, some of the alienees preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court impleading Mst. Bhagwati, Mst. Indrawati and Mst. Radha Rani, as respondents to the appeal. Three sons of Mt. Indrawati and two sons of Mst. Radha Rani were also impleaded, as respondents Nos. 8 to 12, but by an order dated March 11, 1942, the High Court directed that those persons would not be allowed to be impleaded as respondents. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, Mst. Indrawati died. By an order dated May 11 1950, the High Court directed that Mst. Radha Rani would continue to be on the record in place of her deceased sister, Mst. Indrawati and as the next reversioner to the estate of Kalyan Singh. During the pendency of the appeal, on June 17, 1956 the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. At the hearing of the appeal before the High Court, the alienees raised the preliminary contention that after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there are no reversioners and no reversionary rights, and it suit for a declaration that the alienation is not binding on the reversioners is no longer maintainable. The High Court accepted this contention, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The High Court did not go into the other questions raised in the appeal. On January 2, 1958. Mst. Radha Rani applied to the High Court for grant of a certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution of India. On August 8, 1958, the High Court granted the certificate, and on February 27, 1959, the High Court declared the appeal admitted. On May 29, 1961. Mst. Bhagwati died. On or about November 13, 1961, the High Court despatched the records to this Court. No order of the High Court under O. XVI. R. 12(a) of the Supreme Court Rules substituting the heirs of Mst. Bhagwati in her place was obtained, and the appeal abated against her. On March 26, 1962. Mst. Radha Rani filed the petition of appeal in this Court. In this petition of appeal, Mst. Bhagwati and also the above-mentioned three sons of Mst. Indrawati and two sons of Mst. Radha Rani were impleaded as respondents. On August 24, 1964, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2219 of 1964 raising certain preliminary objections, and praying that the appeal be dismissed. This petition was posted for hearing along with the appeal.
(2.) On the merits, the respondents have very little to say. The High Court took the view that the effect of Ss. 14, 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that after the coming into force of the Act, there are no reversioners and no reversionary rights. The Patna High Court in some of its earlier decisions took the same view, but other High Courts took the view that S. 14 did not apply to properties in the possession of alienees under an alienation made by the Hindu female before the Act came into force, and in respect of such properties, as 14, 15 and 16 of the Act did not abolish the reversioners and reversionary rights. In Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami vs. Setra Veeravva, (1959) 1 Suppl. SCR 968 at pages 975-976, this Court approved of the latter view, and this opinion was followed by this Court in Brahmadeo Singh and another vs. Deomani Missir. Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1960. D/- 15-10-1962 (SC). In the last case the trial Court had decreed a suit by the reversioners for a declaration that two sale deeds executed by a Hindu widow were without legal necessity and not binding upon them. The Patna High Court allowed an appeal by the alienees and dismissed the suit holding that by reason of the provisions of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, a suit by a reversioner for a declaration that an alienation made by a Hindu female is not binding on the reversioner is not maintainable. From the decision of the Patna High Court the reversioners preferred an appeal to this Court. This Court held that the view taken by the Patna High Court following its earlier decision in Ramsaroop Singh vs. Hiralall Singh, AIR 1958 Pat 319, and of the Allahabad High Court in Hanuman Prasad. vs. Indrawati, AIR 1958 All 304, (the decision under appeal in this case) was incorrect, and S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not extend to property already alienated by a Hindu female. This Court accordingly allowed the appeal, and reversed the decree of the Patna High Court. The effect of this decision is that it is open to a reversioner to maintain a suit for a declaration that an alienation made by a Hindu female limited owner before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was without legal necessity and was not binding upon the reversioners. It follows that the High Court was in error in holding that the present suit was not maintainable since the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
(3.) But the contesting respondents raise certain preliminary objections, and they contend that the appeal should be dismissed.;