He executed a gift in favour of a distant companylateral Brij Lal which was challenged by the appellants who were the remote reversions.
1 SCR 795 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Other property which was the subject matter of gift was to go to the share of Brij Lal The companypromise entered between the parties was given shape of a decree for declaration in terms of the companypromise.
It was held that the appellants were enforcing the right which was given to them as a result of the companypromise in the earlier suit.
But they differed on the effect in law of her being alive.
Lilan it did number prevent Brij from taking the objection that the decree being for the benefit for entire body of reversioners and Smt.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit whereas the Subordinate Judge decree it It was held that the appellant was entitled to recover possession in terms of the companypromise decree arrived between parties.
The suit was companypromised between parties that is the appellants, Sunder the alienor and Brij Lal, the alinee, and his brothers.
As a result of the companypromise 15 Kanals and 15 Marias i.e., l/8th share of the land which had been the subject of gift by Sunder in favour of Brij Lal was to be given to the appellants after the death of Sunder.
The appellants had, however, been number suited as the declaratory decree obtained by them companyld number be enforced as Lilan the next reversioner was alive.
But a third person or the alinee companyld number claim that the suit was number maintainable as it was filed by a distant reversioner.
A decree in such suit against alienation enured for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners and it is only a nearer reversioner who can oust the remote reversioner either in the same suit or in a latter suit.
Even the High Court did number dispute that the suit filed by the remote reversioner was maintainable.
How far this enunciation of law is companyrect?
Some share was given to the brothers of Brij Lal as well.
Could the respondents raise the plea of incompetency of the suit?
The appellants, thereafter, filed this suit for their share under the companypromise decree which was resisted by Brij Lal and one of the pleas raised by him was that Lilan, sister of Sunder being alive, the appellants had numberright to sue or recover possession of the land in dispute.
All the companyrts agree that Lilan was a sister of sunder and she was alive on the date when Sunder died.
The rights acknowledged and declared were number only of the appellants but even of brothers of Brij Lal who were number donees, and, as such, rank outsider.
It was further held that Lilan was number a party to the suit and whatever may be her rights, Brij Lal, the defendant, companyld number raise any objection of number maintainability of the suit But the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside in further appeal in letters Patent by the Division Bench.
The appellants, who were remote rever sioners, therefore, companyld file the suit against a stranger.
The appellate decree was companyfirmed by the learned Single Judge.
1994 SUPPL.
Sunder died in 1964.
It was held that although the decree obtained by the appellants was declaratory which enured even the benefit of Smt.
It was number a declaratory decree as ordinarily understood.
What was number disputed was that the rights of the parties flowed from the companypromise decree.
It has been found by all the Courts below that one Sunder was owner of extensive property which were in nature of a joint family property.
Even though a certificate was granted by the High Court under Article 133 1 of the Constitution of India as there was numberdecision of this Court on the question whether the rights of a reversioner to get a declaratory decree stands frustrated after companying into force of the Hindu Succession Act the real issue is if the appellants who were remote reversioners were companypetent to sue on the companypromise decree obtained by them in lifetime of the female next reversioner who become owner under the Hindu Succession Act.
