SURAJBALE SINGH Vs. BIRTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that a sale-deed executed by a Hindu widow on June 14th, 1912 was not binding on the plaintiff as reversioner. The sale-deed was executed in favour of persons who were three out of four reversioners to the estate of the widow s husband and these four were the next reversioners. The fourth reversoner, Ram Bharose, assented to the sale. The plaintiff is a remoter reversioner. The sale being thus with the consent of the next reversioners the case comas within the perview of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh 30 A. 1 (P.C) : 12 C.W.N. 74 : 9 Bom.L.R. 1348 : 6 C.L.J. 766 : 3 M.L.T. 1 : 5 A.L.J. 1 : 35 I. A. 1 : 17 M.J. 605. and the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit. If it be assumed that the sale was without consideration and was a gift, it being a gift in favour of the next reversioners the transaction amounted to a surrender of the widow s estate to three of the next reversioners with the consent of the fourth. However, we are not called upon to decide this point. In any view of the case the suit was bound to fail and has been rightly dismissed. We dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees, in this Court, on the higer scale.