(1.) The facts of this case as found by the court below and which are not now contested before us are briefly as follows: Rup Ram, a separated Hindu, died leaving a widow, Musammat Ganga Kunwar, and a mother, Musammat Parbati. One part of his estate was a debt secured by a simple mortgage over certain property. The widow and mother without legal necessity transferred this by deed of sale in favour of the present plaintiff appellant, who has brought this suit for sale impleading as defendants, (1) the mortgagors or their representatives, (2) the transferors of the bond, and (3) certain prior mortgagees who had sued upon their bond without impleading the puisne mortgagee and having obtained a decree for sale had in execution thereof purchased the property and obtained possession.
(2.) The mortgagors did not defend the suit. The vendors admitted the claim. The prior mortgagees contested it, and the one defence with which we are concerned in this appeal was that the plaintiff had no right to sue, as the sale was without legal necessity and the widow could not transfer her right to sue.
(3.) During the pendency of this suit certain reversioners brought another suit against the two ladies and their vendee asking for a declaration that the sale in favour of the latter was null and void as against them, and that under it the vendee acquired no right to the bond. They claimed that their maternal grand- father Puran Mal and Rup Ram had been joint, and that on the death of the latter Puran Mal became the sole owner of the joint family property, and on his death their mother, whom they also impleaded, became entitled to a life interest.