JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. One Sadu Pandu died on 30-5-1914, leaving behind him a widow by the name of Janma. On 25-1-1916, Jamna executed a document relinquishing in favour of the next reversioners of her husband all the property left by her husband. The property consisted of both watan and non-watan lands. The next reversioners were defendant 1 and Sakharam, the father of defendants 2, 3 and 4. On 15-6-1938, Jamna adopted the plaintiff. On 31-1-1946, the plaintiff filed a suit to recover from defendants 1 to 4 the lands belonging to Sadu Pandu in their possession. The trial Court gave a declaration to the plaintiff that he was the validly adopted son of Sadu Pandu, but refused to give him relief with regard to the lands in possession of defendants 1 to 4, holding that there was a valid surrender in their favour by the widow. An appeal was preferred to the District Court. The lower appellate Court took the view that inasmuch as the surrender by the widow comprised not only non-watan lands but also watan lands and as she had not taken the consent of the Collector before she surrendered these lands to the next reversioners, the surrender was invalid, and taking that view the lower appellate Court decreed the plaintiffs suit as a whole. The defendants came in second appeal to this Court. The matter came before Gajendragadkar and Vyas JJ. and the learned Judges have referred to a Full Bench two questions. One is,

"Is the relinquishment of watan properties resulting from a Hindu widows surrender valid in view of the provisions of Sections 5 (1) and 7 of the Watan Act?"

The second is:

"If prior to his adoption a valid surrender has been effected by his adoptive mother, can the subsequently adopted son divest the property which has already vested in the surrenderees?"

2. It is important to note that in the written statement defendants 1 to 4 relied for their title upon the document of 25-1-1916. Apart from this document no reliance was placed on any other fact which would confer title upon the defendants. Therefore, if the plaintiff as the adopted son is to be deprived of the properties belonging to his adoptive father, he could only be deprived provided the defendants establish their title on the strength of that document. Turning 1o that document, the widow points out that she has no issue, that she has come of age and she did not feel it proper to remain without marrying a husband, and she expressed her intention to marry. She points out that after the marriage the next reversioners would get her right in the property, and therefore she says that on the day on which she executed the document of her own accord and voluntarily she has relinquished in favour of the next reversioners all her right in the property of her husband. The document ends up by saying that this writing is therefore duly passed for relinquishment of her right. It is clear, therefore, that the document constitutes a relinquishment by the widow of the property which came to her as her husbands widow in favour of the next reversioners. The document docs not record any previous transaction. The relinquishment is by the document itself. The title, if any, which is conferred upon the defendants is only by this document and not by any other act of the widow.

Prima facie, one would have thought that this document would require registration. It extinguishes the right of the widow in the property with which this document deals, and the Registration Act requires registration of such a document. If the document requires registration and has not been registered, obviously it cannot be admitted into evidence. If that be the position, then 110 further question arises for our determination because, as pointed out, if the whole of the defendants case depended upon this document and if their title rested upon this document, if the document is not admissible in evidence, the defendants must be held to have failed to prove their title. But it is possible, as very fairly pointed out by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document