Reversioner’s right to recover during life time of widow.

This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court, dated the 31st March, 1949, confirming, on appeal, the decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Broach, in Special Suit No. 9 of 1941.

The facts of the case, though a bit long, are not in controversy at the present Stage and the entire dispute between the parties centers round certain points of law relating to the rights of the reversioners, in whose favour a deed of surrender was executed by a Hindu widow, to recover possession of the properties, belonging to the last male owner, during the life-time of the widow from persons who acquired title to the same by adverse possession against the widow.

To appreciate the contentions that have been raised by the parties before us, it will be convenient to give a brief narrative of the material facts in their chronological order. A reference to the short genealogical table given below will show at once the relationship between the parties to the present litigation.

One Jijibhai, whose name appears at the head of the table, had two sons, Tribhovan and Kashibhai. Tribhovan had a son named Mathurbhai who died in 1924, leaving behind him, his widow Hirabai and a son Punjabhai. Kashibhai died in 1914 leaving a son Shankarbhai and a daughter Rukmini, Shankarbhai, whose property is the subject-matter of dispute in the present case, died without any issue in 1922, leaving his widow Bai Kashi who is defendant No. 3 in the suit. It is said, that there was a notional partition netween Kashibhai and Mathurbhai in 1913 which effected a severance of their joint status without any actual division of properties by metes and bounds. Mathurbhai died on 26th January, 1924 and on the 2nd of June following, Hirabai, his widow, made an application to the District Judge for appointment of a guardian of the person and property of her minor son Punjabhai, alleging inter alia, that the minor was the sole owner of the entire joint estate by right of survivorship. On the 1st of July, 1924, Bai Kashi, the widow of Shankarbhai, was served with a notice of this application. On the 17th of July following, she purported to adopt a son named Sivabhai and in answer to the notice in the guardianship proceeding served upon her, put forward the claim of her adopted son. The District Judge regarded the adoption to be invalid and by his order, dated the 29th November, 1924, appointed the Deputy Nazir of his court as guardian of the properties of the minor Punjabhai, the properties including the share of Shankarbhai in the joint estate. The Deputy Nazir took possession of all the properties on behalf of the minor and it is not disputed that Bai Kashi never got possession of any portion of these properties since then. In 1926, Bai Kashi as the guardian of her infant adopted son Sivabhai, brought a Title Suit, being Suit No. 180 of 1926, claiming partition of the joint family properties on the allegation that, by adoption, Sivabhai became a co-owner to the extent of a half share in them. The suit was resisted by Punjabhai represented by his court guardian and the main contention put forward on his behalf was that the adoption, by the widow, of Sivabhai was invalid in law. This contention was given effect to by the trial judge and by his judgment, dated the 4th July 1927, the suit was dismissed. An appeal was taken against this decision, on behalf of Sivabhai, to the High Court of Bombay, but the appeal was withdrawn on the 25th July, 1927. Thereafter in 1930, Rukmini, the sister of Shankarbhai and the mother of the present plaintiffs, instituted a suit, being Suit No. 350 of 1930 for a declaration that the joint status of the family was disrupted by the notional partition effected between Mathurbhai and Kashibhai in 1913 and she, as the next heir of Shankarbhai, was entitled to succeed to Shankarbhai’s share of the properties on the death of Bai Kashi. The trial judge was of opinion that there was, in fact, a severance of joint s