Judgment

PALEKAR, J.: - This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, on a certificate, from the judgment and decree of the Patna High Court dated August 5, 1965 in First Appeal No. 68 of 1960.

2. One Babu Deonandan Prasad Singh died in 1925 leaving behind him considerable property. His widow Dulhin Janki Dulari Kuer, defendant no. 4, being the next heir, inherited that property. In about 1953 the widow settled about 80 bighas of bakasht land in favour of defendants 1 and 2, who were the brothers of defendant no. 4, and defendant no. 3, who was the nephew of defendant no. 4. The plaintiffs claiming to be the reversioners, filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, on 7-9-1957, alleging that the settlements were liable to be set aside as they were male fide, illegal and without consideration and were designed to injure or jeopardize the right of inheritance of the reversioners. The original plaintiff no. 1 claimed to be the nearest reversioner and the other plaintiffs claimed to be a little remote reversioners.

3. Practically the same defence was raised on behalf of the defendants. It was contended that not the plaintiff no. 1 but one Jadunandan Sharma was the next heir, being the sister s son of the deceased Babu Deonandan Prasad; that the settlements were for legal necessity and that, in any case, in view of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue.

4. The Trial Court held that the settlements were neither bona fide nor for legal necessity. It accepted the defence that Jadunandan Sharma was the next reversioner but since his collusion with the defendants was patent the plaintiffs were entitled to sue. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit.

5. In the First Appeal filed by the defendants, the High Court agreed with the Trial Court that the settlements were neither bona fide nor for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate. It did not agree with the Trial Court that Jadunandan Sharma was the next reversioner. It held that the plaintiffs in their representative capacity as the next reversioners were entitled to sue for a declaration that the settlements by the limited owner were invalid.

6. On that finding the decree of the Trial Court ought to have been confirmed but the High Court went further and held that in view of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the lands having vested in the State in 1955 and settled with the persons who were then in possession, no purpose would be served by giving any relief in this suit. Alternatively, on the setting aside of the alienation, possession would be deemed to have reverted to the widow when the Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956 and that, thereafter, the widow would get an absolute estate in the property and thus also all reversionary interests would fail. In that view the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

7. It is contended by Mr. Goverdhan on behalf of the appellants that the High Court was plainly in error in dismissing the suit having held that the alienation in favour of defendants 1 to 3 was bad since that was the only relief that the plaintiffs had claimed in the suit. As reversioners the plaintiffs had filed the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the whole body of reversioners. The whole object of the suit was to preserve the estate for the benefit of the next heir of the deceased Babu Deonandan Singh who would be entitled to inherit that property on the death of defendant no. 4. Since defendant no. 4 was living, there was no question of the plaintiffs asking for possession till her death. The object of the present suit was only to remove the cloud on the title imposed by the settlements made by defendant no. 4 in favour of defendants 1 to 3. In our opinion there is great force in this contention.

8. Our courts have recognized that a reversionary heir, although having only those contingent interests which are differentiated little, if at all, from a spes successionis, has a right to demand that the