RAMKRISHNA KUPPUSWAMI Vs. TRIPURABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which we have to consider in this case is whether an alienation of her husband s property by a Hindu widow lor the purpose of assisting her husband s reversioner in certain pecuniary difficulties in which he had become involved owing to the assistance which he had given to the widow s cousin Somasundar, is binding upon the son adopted to her husband by the widow after the date of the alienation.

(2.) The authorities discussed by this Court in Vinayak v. Govind (1900) I.L.R. 25 Bom. 129, show that the assent of the nearest reversioner to an alienation by a Hindu widow raises a presumption that the alienation was proper. Now if the facts which have been found by the learned District Judge in the present case are taken into consideration, we do not think it can be contended by any one that the alienation was in fact a proper alienation so as to be binding upon the son adopted subsequent to the alienation, unless it can be said that the consent of the nearest reversioner is always sufficient in every case to validate the alienation.

(3.) It is, however, clear from the series of authorities to which we have referred that this is a proposition of law which cannot be sustained.