SANSIR PATELIN Vs. SATYABATI NAIKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1953 of Sri S.K. Mohapatra, Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur, setting aside the decree passed by the Munsif of Sundargarh arising out of a reversionary suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the Kabala executed on 26th August 1950, (Exit. A) by defendant No. 1 (Sansir Patelin) in favour of defendant No. 2 (Lochan Patel) is not binding against the reversioners of the last male owner Parmananda Patel. Paramananda had no son but only four daughters, Satyabati, Nilabati, Hirabati and Sansir. It is the common ground that Nilabati and Hirabati are well provided for and rich in their husbands' places. Paramananda having died in the year 1940, plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 inherited the property of Paramananda as the only heirs as the other two daughters are rich and plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 are unprovided for. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plaintiff No. 1.

(2.) THE plaintiffs brought the suit on 12th October, 1950 for a declaration that the sale -deed (Ex. A) is not binding against the reversioners as it was not for legal necessity. The consideration was for Rs. 4,000/ - and the acreage covered by the sale -deed is 12.59 acres. It also appears, as the case of both parties, that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 were joint till the year 1945 when defendant No. 1 filed a suit for partition in respect of half share which ended in a compromise decree dated 20th June, 1945 which was finalised in 1948. Defendant No. i got to her share 18.75 acres and the suit property is included within this 18.75 acres allotted to defendant No. 1 on the basis of the compromise decree.

(3.) THE trial Court found that defendant No. 1 was only a limited owner having only a woman's interest in the property at the time of the transfer as she inherited it from her father. He, however, found that the transaction was supported by legal necessity and, as such, he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The lower appellate Court, while confirming that in fact defendant No. 1 had limited interest at the time of the transfer came to the conclusion that the transaction was not for legal necessity, and, as such, he allowed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that the transaction (Ext. A) was not binding against the reversioners.