Under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, protection for a bona fide purchaser from an ostensible owner is limited to the duration of that owner's limited estate and does not protect the transferee against the claims of reversioners after the limited estate terminates.

JUDGMENT

V.N.KHARE, J.

(1) THE erstwhile Pepsu government in lieu of meritorious services rendered by late Jangir Singh, Havaldar in Sikh regiment decided to allot land measuring 89 canals 5 biswas situated in village Magha to Smt. Bachan Kaur, widow of late Jangir Singh for maintenance during her lifetime. On 1.4.52, the deputy commissioner, Sangrur in pursuance of the decision of the then government, allotted the land to Smt. Bachan Kaur. The allotment order indicated that Smt. Bachan Kaur shall have only life estate in the said land. In pursuance of the said order of allotment, Smt. Bachan Kaur came into possession over the said land. It appears that on 10.2.64, Smt. Bachan Kaur executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2 in respect of the said land allotted to her for a consideration of amount of Rs. 24,000.00. It further appears that in pursuance of the said sale deed, respondent nos. 1 and 2 came into possession over the said land. The said respondents also applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records, which was granted. However, the State of Punjab filed an objection against the said mutation, which was allowed. On appeal before the financial commissioner, the order was set aside and the parties were directed to establish their right in the civil court.

(2) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order, the State of Punjab instituted a civil suit on 2.9.74 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Smt. Bachan Kaur in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2 is illegal and void and the same does not confer any title on these vendees. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were arraigned as defendants in the said suit along with Smt. Bachan Kaur. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a separate written statement, wherein they took the plea that they being the bona fide purchaser of the land for consideration, have acquired title under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court framed several issues and after considering the matter, decreed the suit. Aggrieved respondents preferred an appeal before the first appellate court against the decree of the trial court, which was dismissed. The respondents thereafter preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that since respondent nos. 1 and 2 were the bona fide purchasers for the consideration, the sale deed executed by. Smt. Bachan Kaur is not a voidable document. In view of that matter, the appeal preferred by the respondents were allowed and the decree affirmed by the first appellate court was set aside. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the state of Punjab is in appeal before us.

(3) MS. Monika Gusain, learned counsel, appearing for the State of Punjab urged that since the widow having limited right during her lifetime, she could not have transferred the interest in the land beyond her lifetime. Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that the respondents being bona fide purchasers from ostensible owners for a consideration and in good faith, the sale deed is valid under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question, therefore, arises is as to whether the widow, who had only life estate during her lifetime, could sell the interest in the land beyond her lifetime. This matter came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Mt. Phool Kuer v. Mt. Prem Kuer and after her death Bohre Manohar Lal and Anr. [AIR 1952 SC 207], wherein it was held that where a person who has allowed another to occupy the position of an ostensible owner has a limited estate, the rule of section 41 applies only during the lifetime of the limited owner and is not available to protect transferees against the claim of the reversioners. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, referred to Sankara Had & Sankara Institute of Philosophy and Culture v. Kishori Lal Goenka and Anr. [1996 (7) SCC 55]. This case has no appl