The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, abolished the concept of reversion and gave absolute ownership rights to female heirs, thereby extinguishing any vested rights of reversioners.

1. In this suit which is the subject matter of this appeal the Plaintiff asked for a declaration that the sale deed executed on 11th July, 1914, by one Mosammat Sureba Kuer in favour of Sitaram was farzi, without consideration and without legal necessity and Was not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that after the death of defendant No. 1, Mosammat Parkalo Kuer, he was entitled to the properties as the next reversioner. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the widow, Mosammat Sureba Kuer, executed the sale deed in favour of Sitaram, father of defendants 2 and 3, in order to defeat the plaintiffs claim. It was further alleged that the document was farzi and collusive and no title passed to Sitaram. It was stated by the plaintiff that defendants 2 to 4 had executed a mortgage bond in respect of the properties covered by the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1, Mosammat Parkalo Kuer, daughter of Mosammat Sureba Kuer. The suit was contested by defendants 2 to 4 who controverted the claim of the plaintiff that he was the next reversioner.

Defendants 2 to 4 also contended that the sale deed was genuine, valid and for consideration. The learned Munsif held upon a consideration of the evidence that Sheoparsan was the son of Moti Mis-sir and as such the plaintiff was the next reversioner of Ramyad, The learned Munsif also held that the sale deed in question was farzi without consideration and for no legal necessity. The Munsif accordingly granted a decree to the plaintiff. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge affirmed the findings of the learned Munsif. A second appeal was taken on behalf of the defendants to the High Court. Mr. Justice C. P. Sinha, who heard the second appeal, dismissed the appeal holding that the decree granted by the trial Court was right.

2. On behalf of the defendants who have presented this appeal under the Letters Patent, Counsel put forward the argument that the plaintiff has no right to institute a suit in view of the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act XXX of 1956). Sec.14 reads as follows:

"Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.

(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation-- In this sub-section, property, includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her. marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or prescription or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act,

(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property".

Sec.15 reads as follows: "General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.

(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Sec.16. (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband,

(b) Secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1),-- (a) any property inherited fay a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in Sub-section (1) in the orde