(1.) THIS is a second appeal against a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik exercising appellate powers.
(2.) THE plaintiffs are the reversioners of one Biru who died in February 1935 leaving two widows, who are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. THE defendants seem to have partitioned their husband's property between themselves for the purpose of their widow's estate, and on May 25, 1935, defendant No.1 Warubai alienated a piece of land which came to her share of her husband's estate to defendants Nos. 3 to 11, who I am told, are the panchas of some temple in the district in which Biru had lived. That alienation is challenged by the plaintiffs as not being made for legal necessity. THE consideration for the sale was Rs. 400 paid to defendant No.1 to enable her to go on a pilgrimage to Gaya, which is admittedly a holy place in the neighbourhood of Benares. THE rest of the consideration was valued at Rs. 600 for the purpose of the Indian Stamp Act and consisted of an agreement by the defendants to pay to defendant No.1 Rs. 50 a year for maintenance during her lifetime, the maintenance being charged on the property. THE learned trial Judge held that, although the proceeding on pilgrimage of a Hindu widow is recognised in Hindu law as a necessity, still Rs. 400 was an excessive sum for this widow to have applied for the purpose. She was an illiterate woman, the widow of a shepherd, and the learned Judge considered, on the evidence of the amount actually spent, that Rs. 200 was quite sufficient for the pilgrimage. In appeal the lower appellate Judge says that it may be that actually she required about Rs. 300 or little more, but he held that Rs. 400 was not an extravagant amount. I think it not very relevant to consider how much she actually required. I apprehend that an illiterate widow going on a pilgrimage is likely to spend all she has got; the priests at the temple would see to that. But I find it very difficult to suppose that the widow or a shepherd would really require Rs. 400 to go on a, pilgrimage in India, and I should think that the estimate of the learned trial Judge that Rs. 200 was all that was required is probably accurate. I do not think that the lower appellate Court has found as a fact that Rs. 400 was a proper sum. Indeed, it is not a question of fact; it is a question of estimate, because it is not suggested that she has any sort of account which shows what she spent.