BHAGIRATHI KHAN Vs. NANIBALA DASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred by some of the defendant-appellants against an appellate judgment and decree of reversal briefly in the following circumstances: the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, who was the married daughter of one benimadhab Ghose by his first wife along with her sons plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 instituted a suit against the present defendants-appellants and also defendant No. 4, the second wife of benimadhab and her daughter Panchibala for a declaration that the transfer by way of sale by the defendant No. 4 of certain immovable properties left. by benimadhab, to present appellants was collusive and fraudulent and at any rate made without any legal necessity and also for other reliefs including permanent injunction.

(2.) THE suit, as appears, was contested by the present appellants-defendants nos. 1 to 3. In their written statement apart from the general denial of material allegations they asserted that the widow, defendant No, 4, had to incur debts for her maintenance and other expenses and the impugned sale was effected by her for legal necessity. Upon the pleading of the respective parties the trial Court on evidence found that the sale effected in favour of the present appellants by the defendant No. 4, was for legal necessity and thus the sale was valid. On appeal, the learned appellate Court disagreed with the raiding of the trial Court and on assessment of direct evidence found that the impugned sale was without legal necessity and thus passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. That is how in short the appellants felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeal.

(3.) IN the appeal before us, three additional grounds were taken raising substantially two questions. Firstly, the right of the plaintiffs-respondents to maintain such a suit as reversioners is disputed in view of provisions of section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and secondly, that in any event, in view of Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act, the reversioners are bound to convey absolute title to the defendants-appellants. We shall come to these questions later on but at the present moment we shall deal with the first question as to whether the plea of legal necessity in this case has been established.