Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed purchasers’ property claims because any right of their alleged reversioner-vendor had expired before their purchase. A widow’s unauthorised alienation could be ignored during her life, but recovery proceedings had to be brought within twelve years after her death. On the assumed reversionary entitlement, limitation expired in 1950 and extinguished the right; the 1955 conveyance therefore passed none. The later Limitation Act did not revive the barred claim.
Issues
- When limitation began for recovery by an alleged reversioner.
- Whether expiry extinguished the vendor’s right before the purchasers acquired it.
- Whether the 1963 Act revived the claim.
Provisions considered
- Articles 140–141 and Section 28, Indian Limitation Act, 1908The twelve-year period ran from the limited owner’s death, and expiry extinguished the asserted property right before the 1955 sale. (¶ 25–28)
- Section 31, Limitation Act, 1963Did not permit institution of a suit already barred under the 1908 Act before the later Act commenced. (¶ 28)
Held
- The widow held a limited estate under the applicable Hindu law, not an absolute estate. While she lived, the reversioners held only an expectancy; whether the granddaughter qualified as a reversioner could be assumed without deciding it because limitation independently defeated the claim. (¶ 20–24)
- An alleged reversioner could ignore the widow’s unauthorised sale, but the right to recover possession accrued upon the widow’s death in 1938. Twelve years expired in 1950, extinguishing any such title; the vendor consequently could convey none in 1955. (¶ 25–28)
- Even the alternative computation from the purchasers’ 1955 conveyance expired long before their suits. The 1963 Act supplied no revival of a claim already barred under the earlier law. (¶ 28–29)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. Dismissal of the purchasers’ suits remained undisturbed on limitation and extinguishment grounds, without needing to decide whether their vendor qualified as a reversioner.