RAMGOUDA ANNAGOUDA vs BHAUSAHEB (DEFENDANTS)

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1927 Supreme(SC) 61

PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SINHA, LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD SALVESEN, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.
RAMGOUDA ANNAGOUDA - Appellant
Versus
BHAUSAHEB (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : July. 11. 1927.

Important Points

A reversioner who is a party to and benefits from a composite transaction involving multiple alienations of a widow's estate is precluded from challenging any part of that transaction, as alienations in excess of a widow's power are voidable and subject to estoppel.

Subject

Property Law - Hindu Law

Act Referred

Transfer of Property Act, 1882: S.6

Headnote

(A) Hindu Law - Widow's power of alienation - Alienations made by a widow in excess of her powers are not void but voidable by the reversioners. Reversioners may be precluded from exercising the right to avoid such alienations through express ratification or acts that treat the transaction as valid or binding.

(B) Estoppel - Where multiple alienations are executed simultaneously and are so connected as to form one transaction for the disposition of an estate, a reversioner who is a party to and benefits from such a transaction is precluded from questioning any part of it.

Facts of the case:
A widow alienated her husband's properties through three simultaneous deeds: a gift to her brother, a sale to her son-in-law, and a sale to the nearest reversioner. The nearest reversioner attested the other deeds and identified the widow before the registrar. After the widow's death, the descendants of the nearest reversioner sued to recover the properties gifted to the brother and sold to the son-in-law, claiming the alienations were invalid.

Findings of Court:
The three documents were part and parcel of one transaction intended to dispose of the estate to prevent future disputes. The nearest reversioner, having benefited from the transaction by acquiring a part of the estate, was precluded from questioning any other part of the same transaction.

Issues: Whether the descendants of a reversioner are precluded from challenging alienations made by a widow when the reversioner himself was a party to and a beneficiary of a composite transaction including those alienations.

Ratio Decidendi: Alienations by a widow in excess of her powers are voidable. A reversioner who participates in and benefits from a connected series of transactions that dispose of the estate is precluded from avoiding specific parts of that transaction.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
Solicitors for appellants:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitors for respondents: Ranken Ford & Chester.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 42 of 1925) from a decree of the High Court (March 19, 1923) which modified a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Belgaum.

The appellants sued in 1918 claiming the property of a Hindu who died in 1846, and whose widow had survived until 1912, on the ground that they were the son and grandsons of one Annagouda, who was nearest reversioner on the widows death. The question in the appeal was whether the plaintiffs were

precluded from recovering property alienated in 1868 by the widow in circumstances which appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge set aside the alienations and gave the plaintiffs a decree for the whole estate. On appeal the High Court set aside the decree, holding that the plaintiffs, being in no better position than their predecessor Annagouda, were bound by the alienations of 1868 and were entitled to recover only the property not then dealt with.

1927. May 17, 19, 20. E. B. Raikes and Nilkanth Atmaram for the appellants. The attestation of Annagouda to the two deeds was not evidence of his consent to the transactions Hari Kishen Bhagat

v. Kashi Per shad Singh (( 1914) L. R. 42 I. A. 4.) ; Banga Chandra v. Jagat Kishore (( 1916) L. R. 43 I. A. 249.) ; Pandurang Krishanji v. Markandeya Tukaram .(( 1921) L. R.49 I. A. 16.) If there was consent it was not by the then next reversioner. The general consent of the reversioners is only evidence that the alienation was for necessity; it is not binding upon the reversioners where it is shown that there was no necessity Bijoy Gopal Mukerji v. Krishna Mahishi Debi (( 1907) L. R. 34 I. A. 87.); Bajranji Singh v. Manokarnika Baksh Singh (( 1907) L. R. 35 I. A. 1.); Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden (( 1918) L. R. 46 I. A. 72.); Naicker Ayyan v. Kandasami Goundar .(( 1923) L.

R. 51 I. A. 145.) The sale to Annagouda himself did not estop him from disputing the other alienations which were separate transactions. The decision in Basappa v. Fakirappa (( 1921) I. L. R. 46 B. 292.) is not consistent with the judgment of the Privy Council in Rangasami Goundens case.(( 1918) L. R. 46 I. A. 72.) The plaintiffs as reversioners were not bound by the acts of Annagouda through whom they traced their descent; Bahadur Singh v. Mohar Singh . (( 1901) L. R. 29 I. A. 1.) Further, Annagouda had in 1868 merely a spes successionis and could enter into no valid transaction as to it Annada Mohan Roy v. Gour Mohan Mullick .(( 1923) L. R. 50 I. A. 239.)

Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Wallach for the respondents. The three deeds constituted a family arrangement made by all the necessary parties. The plaintiffs can be in no better position than Annagouda, and he, having taken advantage of the transaction, was precluded from challenging any part of it. Bajranji Singh v. Manokarnika Baksh Singh (( 1907) L. R. 35 I. A. 1.) is conclusive in the respondents favour and is not adversely affected by Rangasami Goundens case (( 1918) L. R. 46 I.

A. 72.); see also Vinayak v. Govind (( 1900) I. L. R. 25 B. 129.) ; Fateh Singh v. Rukmini Ramani (( 1923) I. L. R. 45 A. 339(F.B.).); Basappa v. Fakirappa (( 1921) I. L. R. 46 B. 292.) ; and Akkava

v. Sayadkhan. (( 1927) 29 Bom. L. Rep. 386(F. B.).) The fact that in 1868 Annagouda had only a spes successionis presents no difficulty. First, because the conveyance was not by him but by the widow. Secondly, because s. 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, did not apply in the Bombay Presidency until 1893, and apart from that section a reversioner could deal with his reversionary rights Sri Jagannada Raju v. Sri Rajah Prasada Rao (( 1915) I. L. R. 39 M. 554, 557.); Gitabai v. Balaji Keshav . (( 1893) I. L. R. 17 B. 272.)

E. B. Raikes replied.

July 11. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD SINHA. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court of Bombay which modified a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Belgaum made in suit No. 203 of 1919.

That suit was instituted to recover pos