VALLURU APPALASURI Vs. SASAPU KANNAMMA NAYURALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by one of two Hindu widows for partition of her husband's property and possession of a share. The 1 defendant is the co-widow and she sold a part of the property under Ex. IV to the 2nd defendant who married the daughter of a deceased co-wife of plaintiff and 1st defendant, and another part to the 3 defendant under Ex. VI. The 4 defendant is the undivided brother of the 3 defendant. The 1 and 2nd defendants lived in the same house. The District Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge remanded the suit for fresh trial. On remand, the District Munsif again passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the interval the 1 defendant died. There was again an appeal to the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff prayed for an amendment of the plaint and prayed for possession of the entire estate as the result of the 1 defendant's death. The amendment was allowed. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the entire property. The defendants 2 to 4 appeal.

(2.) The portion of the case relating to the alienations in favour of defendants 3 and 4 has not been seriously pressed and the other portion relating to the 2nd defendant has been fully argued.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge found that out of the Rs. 600 for which Ex. IV was executed, Rs. 516 was utilised to discharge a decree obtained by D. W. 6 against the husband (Ex. V). If the sale was effected by both the widows, it would have been for purposes beneficial to the estate and therefore binding on the daughter and other reversioners. The appellant's vakil contended, relying on Kalliyanasundaram Pillai V/s. Subba Moopanar (1903) 14 MLJ 139. that the sale ought to be upheld against the plaintiff. In Sri Gajapathi Radhamani V/s. Maharani Sri Pusapati Alakajeswari (1892) ILR 16 M 1 (PC) and Vadali Mamidigadu v. Kotipalli Ramayya (1902) ILR 26 M 334 it was held that one of two co-widows cannot alienate the share of the other even for purposes beneficial to the estate without the consent of the other. The decision in Kattiyanasundaram Pillai v. Subba Moopanar (1903) 14 MLJ 139. decided by Benson and Bashyam Aiyangar, JJ. the same Judges who decided Vadali Mamidigadu V/s. Kotipalli Ramayya (1902) ILR 26 M 334. is apparently inconsistent with this, but, on a careful examination of the judgment, it seems to me that the Judges were of opinion on its facts, that the senior widow was recognised as manager or agent of the other. Such an inference can be made only in a case where there is no known hostility between the widows and is not possible when the widows are hostile to each other as in this case. We therefore agree with the Courts below in holding that Ex. IV is not binding on the plaintiff's half share.