The reversioner of a Hindu widow or a limited heir is a person claiming under the Hindu widow or the limited heir within the meaning of the expression "the transferor or any person claiming under him" as contained in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal was referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of D. Basu. J. and myself for decision on the following two questions :-- (1) Whether the reversioner of a Hindu widow or a limited heir, is a person claiming under the Hindu widow or the limited heir within the meaning of the expression "the transferor or any person claiming under him" as contained in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ? (2) Whether the case of Bhopal Chandra Sarkar v. Jagad Bhusan Sarkar, ILR (1943) 1 Cal 66 = (AIR 1943 Cal 344) was correctly decided 2

( 2 ) AS the instant appeal 5s a Second Appeal, under Rule 2 of Chap. VI of the Appellate Side Rules, the entire appeal was required to be referred to the Full Bench for the disposal of the same by the Full Bench; the reference was therefore, defective. Under these circumstances, this Full Bench remitted back the appeal to the Division Bench and the Division Bench consisting of Arun Kumar Mukherjea, J. and myself have now referred the entire appeal to the Full Bench in accordance with Rule 2 of Chapter VI of the Appellate Side Rules.

( 3 ) THE judgment of the Division Bench whereby the above two questions were referred to the Full Bench, was delivered by me. The points which were argued on behalf of the parties before the Division Bench, have also been argued before the Full Bench. All these points including the aforesaid two questions have been considered by me in my judgment of the Division Bench, After considering the respective contentions of the parties, I do not find any reason to change my view as expressed in my judgment in the Division Bench on these points. It may be stated here, that two other new points have been raised by Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents. Before I refer to and consider these two points, I set out below my judgment in the Division Bench and adopt the same as my judgment in the Full Bench regarding the points dealt with therein :--

( 4 ) THIS is a defendants appeal and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The principal question Involved in this appeal is whether a reversioner of a Hindu female, is a person claiming under her within the meaning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. In order to consider the question, it is necessary to state the facts of the case which lie in a narrow compass.

( 5 ) ONE Umesh Chandra Pal was admittedly the owner of the suit proper-ties described in schedules Ka and Kha to the plaint He died leaving behind him his minor daughter Kalibala, who inherited the suit properties as the sole heiress of her father Umesh Chandra Pal. As Kalibala was a female heir, she got only a limited interest in the suit properties. After the death of Umesh and during the minority of Kalibala. her husband Ashutosh Mondal acting as her guardian sold the Kha schedule properties to one Dwarikanath. husband of de-fendant's sister Satyabala. on Magh 11, 1337 B. S. and gifted the Ka schedule properties to him on Magh 10, 1337 B. S. Both these transfers were made by two unregistered instruments on the ground of legal necessity. The purported gift of the Ka schedule properties was burdened with the condition that the donee Dwarikanath was to perform the seva puja of Sri Sri Iswar Radha Damodar Jiu Thakur. the family deity of Umesh. The defendants purchased both the Ka and Kha schedule properties from Satyabala. after the death of her husband Dwarikanath, There is no dispute that Dwarikanath took possession of the suit properties on the basis of the said transfers by the unregistered instruments. After the death of Dwarikanath, his widow Satyabala possessed the suit properties and after the same were transferred to the defendants the defendants have been possessing the suit properties. After the death of Kalibala. the plaintiff purchased the suit properties from her son the pro forma defendant No. 3. Ganapati by a registered deed of sale, dated Magh 13, 1360 B. S