UMAKANTA MUKHERJEE Vs. SATYA CHARAN BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a concurrent decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, which was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the disputed property and confirmation of possession; or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession, on declaration that defendant No. 1 had acquired no title to the same by his purchase from the previous limited owner, as the said sale was not for any legal necessity or justifying cause.

(2.) Shortly stated, the relevant facts are as follows : The suit property belonged to one Tulsi, who died on July 22, 1936, leaving his widow Kalitara. Tulsi had a sister Charusila. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the respondents before me, claim to be purchasers from Kalitara for legal necessity.

(3.) The plaintiff claims to be a purchaser from Charusila's heirs who, according to the plaintiff, were Tulsi's reversioners. In other words, the plaintiff claims to challenge the purchase of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from Kalitara on the footing that he was in the same position as their vendors, who were reversioners to Kalitara's husband and, as such, were entitled to challenge the said transaction.