Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, female Hindus acquire absolute ownership rights in their property, abolishing the concept of reversioners and rendering suits by reversioners for declarations of invalidity of alienations not maintainable.

Sinha, J.

1. This appeal was originally filed by defendant No. 1, Mosammat Janki Kuer. Later, some other defendants were transposed to the category of appellants. The suit was by the reversioner for a declaration that the several alienations mentioned in the plaint made by defendant No. 1 were not binding upon the reversioners because the alienations were not justified by any legal necessity. In the view which we have taken of this case, it is not necessary to deal elaborately with the facts, but it would be better to state a short genealogy of the family of defendant No. 1.

MOHAN MIAN

|

________________________

| |

Bulaki Mian Mt. Bibban

| (D.3)

| |

| Muhiuddin Ahmad

| alias

| Guldasta Mohammad

| (D.2)

|

_______________________________________________

| | | |

Ishaq Jabbar Mt. Jamila Mt. Hasiba

(D.4) (D.5) (D.1) (D.6)

The suit is by Chhathu Prasad, one of the two sons of Jadunandan Lal.

2 The defence was that the alienations were justified by legal necessity, and, therefore, binding on the reversioners.

3. The Court below held that several of the alienations were valid and for legal necessity and others were not valid and binding upon the reversioners. Defendant No. 1, the alienor, as already mentioned, originally filed this appeal, and, thereafter the alienees have also got themselves transferred to .the category of appellants.

4. Mr. De, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that in this case the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (XXX of 1956) applies, and this appeal is concluded by the authority of this Court in Ram Ayodliya Missir V/s. Raghunath Missir, 1956 Pat LR 486: 1956 BLJR 734: ((S) AIR 1957 Pat 480) (A). The facts of that case were as follows : The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the sale-deed executed on the 11th July, 1914 by one Mosammat Sureba Kuer in favour of one Sitaram was farzi, without consideration and without legal necessity and, as such, not binding upon the plaintiff.

It was also alleged by the plaintiff that, after the death of defendant no. 1, Mossammat Barkalo Kuer, he was entitled to the properties as the next reversioner. Mosammat Parkalo Kuer was the daughter of Sureba Kuer. The suit was contested by defendants 2 to 4, and the learned Munsif held that the plaintiff was the next reversioner and that the sale deed in question was farzi, without consideration and without legal necessity. The plaintiffs suit was thus decreed.

The decree was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, and the second appeal to this Court was dismissed. In this Court, in the Letters Patent Appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the defendants, the alienees, that the plaintiff had no right to institute the suit in view of the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Their Lordships accepted the submission made on behalf of the appellants and held : "........ as the law stands at present the plaintiff has no interest in the property either of Mosammat Parkalo Kuer or of Mossammat Sureba Kuer. The plaintiff has no vested interest nor has he any spes successions in the property which is the subject-matter of the present litigation. Under the Hindu Law as it stood before the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of 1956) every female who succeede