RAM DULARE Vs. BATUL BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected Second Appeals. They arise out of two suits Nos. 71 of 1963 and 34 of 1964. Both the suits were filed by Ram Dularey and Sheo Kumar, the plaintiff-appellants for possession of the houses detailed at the foot of the plaints and for recovery of mesne profits. Suit No. 71 of 1963 related to house No. 309 (new) 254 (old),. Shahganj, Allahabad, while Suit No. 34 of 1964 related to house No. 339 (new), 285 (old), Shahganj, Allahabad. The plaintiffs in the two suits claimed to be the reversioners of one Kripa Shanker, who was the owner of the houses in dispute. Kripa Shanker died issueless in 1912 leaving behind his widow Smt. Janki Devi as his heir. Smt. Janki Devi sold house No. 309, Shahganj (No. 254 old) in favour of one Smt. Jagrani on 25-10-1921. The house thereafter passed through several hands under various sale deeds and was ultimately sold to defendants respondents in Suit No. 71 of 1963 by the last purchaser Surajdin. House No. 339, Shahganj (285 old) was sold by Smt. Janki Devi to one Hafiz Jalaluddin Ahmad on 24-2-1931, who sold it to one Abdul Halim and the latter sold the same to the defendant respondent in Suit No. 34 of 1964. 'The plaintiffs in the two suits claimed title to the properties as reversioners of Kripa Shanker alleging that the sale deeds were invalid having been executed without any legal necessity. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed possession of the properties and mesne profits and damages from the defendants. Suit No 71 of 1963 was dismissed by the trial court and that decree was affirmed in appeal. Second Appeal No. 2782 of 1968 arises out of the judgment and decree of the Second Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 24-4-1968, affirming the decree passed by the learned Munsif, dismissing the suit. Suit No. 34 of 1964 was decreed by the trial court, but dismissed in appeal by the lower appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 8-5-1967. Second Appeal No. 2364 of 1967 is directed against the decree passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad dated 8-5-1967 dismissing the plaintiff-appellants' suit for possession and damages. Thus, both the suits have been dismissed in appeal and the plaintiffs challenge the decrees passed against them on the ground that the sale deeds dated 25-10-1921 and 24-3-1931 were invalid and their claim for possession, menses profits and damages was entitled to succeed. We are thus required to examine the two sale deeds dated 23-10-1921 and 24-2-1931 respectively and determine whether they are valid in law.

(2.) A short pedigree is relevant for the purposes of the case.

(3.) IT will thus be seen that the sale dated 25-10-1921 was made for three purposes : (1) The Gaya Shradh of Shrimati Janki Devi's husband. (2) the repair of houses and (3) her own maintenance. Both the courts below have held that the alienation was made for legal necessity, Rs. 500 being required for Gaya Shradh, Rs. 400 for repair of houses and Rs. 450 for maintenance of the lady. Gays Shradh is an obligatory religious act for the salvation of the soul of a deceased, and is a legal necessity under the Hindu Law, justifying an alienation. Alienation is also permissible for the maintenance of a widow under the Hindu Law. See Ram Sumran Prasad v. Mt. Shyam Kumari (AIR 1922 PC 356); Neelambal Ammal v. Rajarathnam Pillai (AIR 1956 Mad 336); Umakant Mukherji v. Satya Charan Basu (AIR 1965 Cal 189) and Ratilal Fulchand v. Indravadan Manilal (AIR 1966 Guj 133).