During his life time, Hirday Ram made a Will dated 1.10.1938 whereby he bequeathed a part of his property to his daughter Tikami and the remaining property was given to his two other wives, named above, for their maintenance with the companydition that they would number have the power to alienate the same in any manner.
After the death of Uttamdassi, appellant the granddaughter of the original owner Hirday Ram brought a suit for possession of the suit property being the nearest reversioner and on the basis of the two earlier declaratory decrees obtained by her.
Appeal filed by Uttamdassi was dismissed on 25.1.1963.
The said Sandup mortgaged back the property to Uttamdassi who on 2.12.1958 made a gift of another property in favour of respondent No.3 herein who in turn sold to it respondent No.4.
The appellant herein again filed a suit challenging the said alienation also and seeking a declaration that the said alienation made by Uttamdassi would number effect her reversionary rights.
The appellant herein is a daughter of Tikami and granddaughter of Hirday Ram filed a suit challenging the alienation made by Uttamdassi seeking a decree for declaration that the alienation made by Uttamdassi would number effect her reversionary rights.
It is relevant to mention herein that Uttamdassi had gifted a part of the property in favour of respondent No.5 by way of a Will on 27.12.1986.
He had three wives, namely, Kubja, Pari and Uttamdassi.
After the companying into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Uttamdassi claiming to be the absolute owner sold a part of the property to one Sandup on 28.11.1958 predecessor in interest of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt on 12.7.1961.
On 24.5.1975 Uttamdassi gifted the property sold by her to Sandup in 1958 in favour of respondent No.5.
Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows One Hirday Ram was the owner of the suit property.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit but an appeal preferred by the appellant herein the was accepted by the First Appellate Court and the gift made by the Uttamdassi in favour of respondent No.5 was held to be void ab initio and a declaration was given that the alienation made by Uttamdassi would number effect reversionary rights of the plaintiff.
After the death of Hirday Ram and his second wife Pari in 1939, the property in question came to be vested with the third wife, Uttamdassi as per the terms of the Will.
Thus the said declaratory decree became final as it was number put to challenge in further appeal in the High Court.
As per the Will, after the death of the above two wives of Hirday Ram, the property was to revert back to his daughter Tikami as absolute owner.
Kubja had pre deceased Hirday Ram leaving behind a daughter named Tikami.
This decree also became absolute as the same was number put to any further challenge.
Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 30.9.1991 by the First Appellate Court holding inter alia that the declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant did number operate as res judicata inter se parties as the same were passed in suits filed by the appellant as presumptive reversioner of the widow of Hirday Ram and the present suit was filed after her death for possession as owner.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit on 22.8.1989.
She died on 1.1.1987.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Noticing certain companytradictory views in three different judgments of this Court in Teg Singh vs. Charan Singh 1977 2 SCC 732, Kesar Singh vs. Sadhu 1996 7 SCC 711 and Balwant Singh vs. Daulat Singh 1997 7 SCC 137 , a Division Bench of 2 Judges of this Court referred the instant appeals for disposal by a larger bench by its referral order dated 27th October, 2004, hence, this appeal is before us.
