SAHU JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. PANDIT SHREEDHARPANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain property. The plaintiffs in the action which has given rise to this appeal claim to be the reversioners of one ganga Prasad who died as long ago as the year 1875 as a minor without any issue. His successor was his mother, Shrimati Hardei. Hardei died in 1933. The reversioners brought the suit within twelve years of her death for the recovery of the estate of Ganga Prasad. They impleaded the transferees of the estate also in the suit. In this appeal we are concerned with one of the transferees namely, Sahu Jagdish Prasad, arrayed as defendant 14.

(2.) SAHU Jagdish Prasad is in possession of the property of village Bhagwantpur. This property was not the property of Ganga Prasad. It had been acquired by Shrimati Hardei from certain debtors of Ganga Prasad, partly in lieu of Ganga Prasad's debts and partly in lieu of some money which was the 'stridhan' property of Shrimati Hardei. According to the plaintiff-respondents the property was acquired by Smt. Hardei as an accretion to - the estate of Ganga Prasad and she could not transfer it without legal necessity, which according to them, did not exist. The defence of the suit, so far as Sahu Jagdish Prasad is concerned, was, firstly, that the property in its entirety was the self-acquired property of Smt, Hardei and she could, therefore, transfer it as she liked; and, in the second place, that the transfer in favour of the appellant was justified on the ground of legal necessity. The Court below has held that part of the consideration belonged to the estate of Ganga Prasad and there was no necessity for transferring the property. The sale deed with regard to that portion of the estate has been declared to be void, and a decree for possession with regard to that portion has been passed. With regard to the remaining portion it has been held that it was purchased by the 'stridhan' money of Smt: Hardei and the suit of the plaintiff in respect of that portion has been dismissed. From this judgment the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court and the plaintiff has filed a cross-objection.

(3.) IN this appeal we have, therefore, to see whether the transfer in favour of the appellant's predecessor-in-interest could be justified on the ground of legal necessity or, as it has been argued as being for the benefit of the estate with regard to the whole of it or any part thereof; and whether, if that was not so, the whole or any part of it could be said to be an accretion to the estate of Ganga Prasad.