SATISH CHANDRA NAG Vs. HARIPADA DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration that a certain deed of sale executed on the 31 May, 1922, by-defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the name of the defendant) No. 1, for the sum of Rs. 1,400 was a fraudulent and collusive document, that it had been obtained by undue influence and had been made without any legal necessity and was not therefore binding on the plaintiff who is the reversioner of the son of defendant No. 2.

(2.) The facts are as follows: Preonath De was married twice. By his first wife he had three daughters and one son. This son Upendra Nath died during his father's lifetime leaving a widow but no issue. The plaintiff's are the children of the eldest daughter of the elder wife. Defendant No. 2 is the second wife of Preonath De. She had one daughter Natu Bala and one son Chandra Kanta who is now dead. The plaintiffs are now the reversioners to the estate of Chandra Kanta. The case of the plaintiffs is that the widow had no legal necessity to sell the property. The case of the defendants is that the money was required for the marriage of her daughter. The trial Court found for the plaintiffs. It found that there was no legal necessity for the widow to sell the property, that the defendant made no proper inquiry to ascertain if there was any legal necessity to sell the property as there was no pressure on the estate. It found that the money was actually spent on the marriage of the daughter and the total amount spent on the marriage was some Rs. 3,000 or Rs. 3,500 of which 1,400 was raised by the sale of the property and the remainder must have come from the estate of Preonath. Why it must have come from the estate of Preonath is perhaps not very clear. He seems to have found that the sale was a genuine one for consideration. The defendants appealed to the District Judge who dismissed the appeal. He found that the money was spent on the marriage of the daughter but the marriage could have been performed without selling the property and so there was no legal necessity for the sale; further that the defendants made no proper inquiries to ascertain if the money was really required for the marriage of the daughter of defendant No. 2. The defendants have appealed to this Court.

(3.) It is argued on their behalf that there is no evidence that there was any money in the hands of the widow that could have been used for the marriage of the girl that the defendants did not know nor is there any reason why they should have known that the widow had sold her own ornaments to defray the marriage expenses; that the widow was quite justified in spending the sum that she did in order to secure a really suitable bridegroom for the girl. Even if the widow had in her hands some money she was not obliged to spend that money on the marriage unless it had come out of the estate. The only money in the hands of the widow was the money that she had realised from the sale of her own ornaments and she had no money in her hands derived from the estate of her deceased husband. The respondent seems to argue, though I am bound to say that his contention on the point is not very clear, that as the widow had in her hands the money that she had realised from the sale of her own ornaments she was not justified in spending so much on the girl's marriage. The marriage of the other daughters of Preonath had been celebrated for a less sum, viz., Rs. 800 and so the widow was not justified in spending more on this marriage.