A widow who surrenders her husband's estate to the nearest reversioners is not entitled to be maintained out of the estate in the hands of the surrenderee unless there is an agreement between the widow and the reversioner for her maintenance.

( 1 ) ORDER of reference to a Full Bench dellvered by the Hon ble The Chief justice : this is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Umamaheswaram j. holding that a widew, after her surrender of the properties to the next reversioners is entitled to file a suit for enhancement of the rate of maintenance given to her under the surrender deed. In support of his view, the learned Judge mainly relied upon the observations of Sadasiva Ayyar J. in Chinnaswami Pillai v. Appalaswami Pillai . After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, we think the question raised should be authoritatively decided by a Full Bench. We therefore refer the following question for the decision of the Full Bench : "whether a widow after surrendering her widow s estate in favour of the next reversioners, is entitled to be maintained out of the estate in the hands of the surrenderee?" opinion opinion of the Full Bench was delivered by Viswanatha Sastry, J. The question referred to the Full Bench is " Whether a widow after surrendering her widow s estate in favour of the next reversioners, is entitled to be maintained out of the estate in the hands of the surrenderee". In the case out of which the reference has arisen there was a surrender by a Hindu Widow of the estate inherited by her from her husband in favour of the nearest male reversioners with a stipulation for the payment to her by the reversioners of a sum of Rs. 50/- per year for her maintenance in the event of her desiring to live separate from them. After receiving maintenance at the above rate for some years the widow sued the reversioners for enhanced maintenance out of her husband s estate on account of the increased cost of living but the reversioners denied her right to such maintenance. The reference covers not only cases where a Hindu widow surrenders her husband s estate without any stipulation for her maintenance and subsequently claims maintenance from that estate in the hands of the reversioner but also cases where she seeks a revision of the terms of a maintenance arrangement entered into with the reversioner when she surrendered the estate. We are not aware of any decision and none has been cited to us, where this particular point has been considered. There is a very large body of authority in decided cases which touches it but it is not concluded or even covered by any decision. The answer to the question referred must rest on a consideration of the true nature and effect of a surrender of a widow s estate under the Hindu Law. The doctrine of surrender for which textual authority is slender has been established by judicial decisions ranging over a century starting from the decision of the Supreme Court of Bengal in jadoomoney Debee v, Mookerjee and ending with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Natvarlal v. Dadhubhai. and a Full Bench of this Court in Rami Reddi v. Rosarnma . The writers of the bengal School first foreshadowed the theory of relinquishment or surrender by a Hindu widow and the early decisions of the Calcutta High Court formulated the doctrine with its limitations and qualifications. In dealing with the question of succession after the widow s death, Jimutavahana and acharya Chudamani indicated the possibility of her right ceasing before her death and in that event prescribed the same line of devolution of the estate as on her death. From these passages was evolved the theory of surrender" or acceleration of the estate of the next heir by the withdrawal of the widow s interest in property inherited by her from her husband. It was held by the courts that the reversioners would take the estate, not merely when the widow died but also when her title was otherwise extinguished, for instance, by renunciation or surrender or by remarriage. Referring to the acceleration of the reversioners right by surrender, Sir James Golvile G. J. of the Supreme court of Bengal observed in jadomoney Debee v. Sarodo Prosonno Mookerjee: "it is, i
Click Here to Read the rest of this document