A limited owner cannot alienate property that is not in her possession and a dedication of property to a deity by a limited owner is valid and binding on the reversioner if it is made during the lifetime of the limited owner and the deity is in possession of the properties.

B.N.Rai, J.

1. This appeal by two of the transferees and Musammat Rukminia Kuer, who was defendant No. 4 to the title suit, is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, first court, Arrah, in Title Suit No. 9 of 1952 by which he had held that the rehan bond in favour of defendant No. 1, Chandradip Rai, and the dedication in favour of defendant No. 5, Ram Lakshman Janki, made by the limited owner, Musammat Rukminia Kuer, was not binding upon the next reversioner to the estate of Ramchandra Rai after the death of the limited owner.

2. The facts necessary for the determination of the points in controversy in this appeal may shortly bo stated as follows : Balchoti Rai, brother of the plaintiff, had died some 33 years ago leaving behind him his minor son, Ramchandra Rai, and his widow, Musammat Rukminia Kuer. After the death of his father, Ramchandra Rai came in possession of his properties and remained in possession thereof until the time of his death which had happened some years after he had attained majority. After the death of Ramchandra Rai, his mother, Musammat Rukminia Kuer, succeeded to the properties left by her deceased son. On 31-3-1950, Musammat Rukminia Kuer executed a rehan bond in favour of Chandradip

Rai, defendant No. 1.

The lady had also executed another deed of transfer which is not necessary to be mentioned here. On 3-3-1952, the plaintiff instituted the title suit out of which" the present appeal arises for a declaration that the alienations made by the limited owner were not binding upon the next reversioner after her death. During the pendency of the suit, Musammat Rukminia Kuer executed a registered deed of Arpannama dated 18-5-1952, whereby she dedicated 3.843 acres of raiyati land and a house standing on .03 acre of land as well as thirteen mango and three mahua trees in favour of Shri Thakur Ram Lakshman Janki. The plaintiff thereafter got the plaint amended and included that alienation also in the present suit. He made the deity defendant No. 5 to the nation.

3. The suit was contested by Musammat Rukminia Kuer as well as by the transferee defendants, who pleaded, inter alia, that the transfers were binding upon the next reversioner.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the contention of the plaintiff and held that the rehan bond executed in favour of defendant No. 1 and the deed of Arpannama in favour of the deity, defendant No. 5, were not binding upon the next reversioner to the estate of Ramchandra Rai after the death of Musammat Rukminia Kuer. These two transferees along with Musammat Rukminia Kuer thereafter came up ie appeal before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended on the strength of the decision in the case of Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami V/s. Setra Veeravva, AIR 1959 SC 577 that the present plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the binding nature or otherwise of the rehan bond dated 31-3-1950, because the limited owner will be deemed to be in possession of the equity of redemption and by virtue of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , she will be deemed to have acquired an absolute interest therein bringing to an end the interest of any reversioner so far as that property is concerned. The relevant portion of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court runs thus :

"On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the words possessed by had a wider meaning than actual physical possession, although physical possession, may be included in the expression. In the case of Venkayamma V/s. Veerayya, (S) AIR 1957 Andh-Pra 280, Viswanatha Sastri J. with whom Satyanarayana Raju J. agreed, expressed the opinion that the word possessed in Sec.14 refers to possession on the date when the Act came into force. Of course, possession referred to in Sec.14 need not be actual physical possession or personal occupation of the properly by the Hindu female but may be possession in law. The possession of a licensee, le