SHEODUTTA KEDIA Vs. AKALI BHUMIJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants, and it arises out of a suit for a declaration that deed of surrender executed by a lady is collusive and inoperative and not binding against the plaintiffs who claim to be the reversionary heirs of one Sonu Singh Bhumij. The lands which are the subject of the suit belonged to the said Sonu Singh Bhumij, and Sonu died about 7 or 8 years before the institution of the suit leaving the plain-tiffs who are his daughters by his first wife who had predeceased him, his second wife defendant 4, and a minor daughter named Rukni Bhumijani by his second wife. The family is governed by the Bayabhaga school of Hindu Law, and after the death of Sonu, defendant 4 came in possession of his properties as a limited owner. The case made by the plaintiffs is that on account of ill-feeling between them and defendant 4, defendant 4 surrendered the lands described in Schedule 2 of the plaint having an area of 70 bighas 2 kathas 14 dhurs in favour of the landlord, defendant 1, on 1-11-1944. Rs. 2999/- was realised as consideration from defendants 2 and 3, the agreement being that the lands would be settled by the land-lord with them. Defendant 1 who is the ghatwal landlord applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Manbhum for permission to settle the lands with defendants 2 and 3, and in spite of an objection raised by the plaintiffs the surrendered land was settled with defendants 2 and 3. The actual settlement was made after the institution of this suit. The plaintiffs' contention is that the necessity mentioned in the deed of surrender is fictitious and that there was no legal necessity for incurring a debt or for making the surrender.

(2.) The suit was contested by defendants 2 and 3 on the pleas, firstly, that the plaintiffs being remote reversioners could not question the surrender or the alienation and, secondly, that the surrender was made for legal necessity.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has granted a declaration to the effect that this surrender will not be binding against the plaintiffs after the lifetime of the widow, defendant 4, his finding being that the surrender was not for legal necessity.