A reversioner's right to recover property is barred only if the widow's right was barred by limitation due to dispossession. A family settlement binding a reversioner requires the alienee to possess an independent competing title, and a partial division of estate does not constitute a surrender.

Judgement

Law. Rep. 69 Ind. App. 110 ( 1941- 1942) Mathukumalli Ramayya V. Uppalapati Lakshmayya 29

Consolidated Appeal (No. 5 of 1940) from a decree of the High Court (October 1, 1937) which varied a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur (September 21, 1931).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee This appeal arose out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff (respondent) for recovery of possession of immovable properties, as the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Ramachandrudu, on the death of his widow, Achamma, in 1926, on the ground that the properties appertaining to the estate had been wrongfully alienated partly by his mother and partly by his widow. The defendants (appellants) were the alienees or their successors in title. Generally stated, they might be roughly grouped as those claiming under alienations made by the mother, and those claiming under alienations made by the widow. The suit related to sixteen items of properties, of which items 11 to 14 and 16 were claimed on the footing that they had been acquired with the income of the estate subsequent to Ramachandrudus death and must be treated as accretions to that estate. The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs claim to those items as unsustainable. The case as regards them was not before the Board ; nor was the case as regards items 1, 3 and a portion of item 7, which was compromised by the parties in the trial court.

Ramachandrudu was a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law. He died, as had now been found, in 1859, leaving surviving him his mother, Bangaramma, a young widow, Achamma, and a sister, Ramamma. Bangaramma died in 1878. Soon after Ramachandrudus death there appeared to have been an arrangement effected on October 16, 1859, between Achamma and Bangaramma under which Achamma was given Rs.100 and a remainder in inam lands in two villages after Bangarammas death, and the latter took absolutely the rest of the properties of Ramachandrudu. On March 17, 1866, Bangaramma executed a registered deed conveying the properties which she obtained under the above arrangement to her daughters son, Subbaramayya. That deed recited the terms of the arrangement of 1859, and Bangaramma stated in it that she had delivered that deed to her grandson so that it might serve as a title deed." That deed had not been produced. Defendants 1 to 8 were the descendants of Subbaramayya and of his brother, Velugondarayudu.

Subsequently, disputes were raised by Achamma regarding the title to the properties in the possession of Subbaramayya, and as a result, a settlement was effected between them by mediators, by the execution of two documents on August 13, 1867, under which Achamma got absolute title to a one-third share of the properties covered by the deed of March, 17, 1866, and Subbaramayya to a two-thirds share. In 1876 Achamma sold her one-third share, and the defendants now in possession of those properties held them under the title derived from her.

In their written statements the defendants disputed the relationship of the plaintiff as the nearest reversioner, and contended that Ramachandrudu was not the last male holder, he, according to them, having predeceased his father. On both points the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur found in favour of the plaintiff. He also found that Ramachandrudu died in or about the middle of 1859. Those findings were accepted in the High Court and were not questioned before the Board. The High Court expressed the view that Ramachandrudu must have died on some date between May and October, 1859. The defendants also contended in the course of arguments that immediately on the death of Ramachandrudu, Bangaramma took possession of all his properties which had legally vested in Achamma, that the possession thus taken was hostile to Achamma, that "she and her transferees were "in possession for over 12 years before the Limitation Act of " 1871 took effect, i.e., before April 1, 1873," and "so under "the pr