VENKAYYA Vs. MOKKARALA BANGARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF sued for recovery of Rs. 424-9-6, (Rupees four hundred and Twenty- four, annas nine and pies six) due on a pro-note executed by a widow for family necessity and obtained a decree against her reversioners who petition to have it set aside. The question is whether in circumstances of necessity, a widow can bind the estate. It was originally held in Madras that she cannot do so. See Ramaswami Mudaliar V/s. Sellatammal (1882) 4 Mad. 375 but that ruling has been departed from in Regella Jagayya V/s. Venkataratnamma (1910) 33 Mad. 492. Dhiraj Singh v. Manga Ram (1897) 19 All. 300 follows the earlier Madras view. Calcutta has always held the other way. See Ramkoomar Mitter V/s. Ichamoyi Dasi (1881) 6 Cal. 36 and the whole question has been exhaustively summed up by Jenkins, C.J., in Sakrabhai V/s. Maganlal (1902) 26 Bom. 206 where it is held that the assets are liable as against the reversioners.

(2.) IN the circumstances I see no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed with costs.