SUDALAMUTHU KONAR Vs. RAMALEKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was filed by three plaintiffs for a declaration that they were the reversioners of one Chudalamuthu Konar, the deceased husband of defendants 3 and 4 and for cancellation of a sale deed Ext. V dated 26.4.1117 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The sale deed was sought to be cancelled on the ground that the same was unsupported by consideration and necessity. All the defendants contested. The main contentions were that the deceased had a sister and plaintiffs not being the nearest reversioners were not entitled to maintain the suit, that the sale deed was supported by consideration and necessity and was not liable to be set aside. The court of first instance held that the suit was maintainable, that the sale deed was supported by consideration and that there was no "absolute necessity" to sell the property. The suit was accordingly allowed. On appeal by defendants 3 and 4 the learned District Judge concurred with the Trial Court's view on the question of consideration but differed on the question of necessity and dismissed the suit. This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs from the latter decree. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a memorandum of cross objections regarding the finding on the question of maintainability of the suit.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the property sold must have been much more valuable than the sum of fanams 6000 for which the same was sold, that the widow could alienate only under circumstances which would entitle the guardian of a minor to alienate minor's property and that the sale deed should therefore be invalidated. On the first point viz., that the property was sold for an inadequate price, there is neither an allegation nor evidence. Both courts have concurrently found that the sale deed is supported by consideration. All except a sum of Rs. 233/- for want of consideration has gone towards liquidation of the debts of deceased Chudalamuthu Konar. The second point viz., that there was no pressing necessity or benefit to the estate in executing the sale deed does not really arise as the widows were discharging the debts of their deceased husband. The parties are governed by Hindu Law. A widow may alienate the estate for certain religious or charitable purposes. Payment of debts of the deceased is essential and obligatory, and this falls under the category of religious or charitable purposes. The power of the widow to alienate the estate inherited by her for purposes other than religious or charitable alone is governed by the principles laid down by the Privy Council in Hunnooman Persahad v. Mussamat Babooee (6 MIA 393). To justify an alienation for a religious or charitable purpose, it is not necessary to show any "benefit to the estate or to prove any pressure" on the estate such as is necessary in the case of an alienation for other purposes. The alienation in question being one for the discharge of the debts of the deceased husband of the widows, the same has to be upheld. In view of this conclusion the question of maintainability of the suit does not arise. The decree appealed against does not call for interference and the same is confirmed. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The memorandum of cross objection is also dismissed without costs.