GOSTHA BEHARI BERA Vs. HARIDAS SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendants and arises out of a suit instituted in Sub-Judge's Court, Midnapore, for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to 8 as share of the suit-properties and for recovery of possession thereof. The properties in question belonged to two brothers, Ramchand and Balaichand in equal shares. Defendants No. 5 to 7 are the heirs of Balai, Ramchand died leaving behind a widow Haripriya and three daughters and Haripriya inherited a widow's estate in his properties. She died in 1352 B. S. and was survived by two of the daughters, namely, Barada, a sonless widow, and Basanta Ku-mari, defendant No. 4, and by a son of the predeceased daughter named Sripati, defendant No. 3. Haripriya had during her lifetime sold her share of the properties of ka sch. of the plaint to defendant No. 1 and had executed two deeds of gift in respect of the properties of schs. kha and ga in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively. The plaintiff purchased 8 as share of all the properties from Basanta Kumari in 1353 B. S. after the death of Haripriya. He challenged the transfers made by Haripriya by way of sale and gift as without legal necessity and as such not binding on the sole reversionary heir Basauta Kumari and claimed to have acquired title to the properties by his purchase from the latter.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 pleaded that the sale to him was for legal necessity and was therefore binding on the reversioner Basanta Kumari. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that the gift to him was for religious purposes and hence bound the reversioner, while defendant No. 3 pleaded that he had been brought up by Ramchand who had expressed a desire to give him a share of the properties and that the gift by Haripriya was in pursuance of that desire and hence binding on the reversioner. Other objections raised in the suit are not material at this stage.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit and this decree was affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Midnapore. Both the Courts have concurrently found that Haripriya had a widow's interest in the properties and that the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 was not justified by legal necessity. This finding has not practically been challenged before us. No evidence of legal necessity was adduced by defendant No. 1 and no attempt was made to prove that Haripriya had any debts or was in want of any money for her maintenance, as recited in the document, or that the purchaser had made any enquiry worth the name.