BHUVARAGHA IYENGAR Vs. NATESA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The difficulties which a purchaser of property must have in proving that alienations made some fifty years ago by a Hindu widow were for necessary purposes, have in arguing this appeal been vividly represented to us. But in the present case I must accept the findings of the lower Courts for the reasons given by them. The appellant did not succeed in proving the minimum required in such cases. The Consideration for Exhibit VI is four prior debts and a sum of ready cash received by Valu Ammal for her own use. One of these debts was according to the recital of Exhibit VI-D incurred by the widow for paying the arrears of kist and for meeting her private expenses. Another was incurred for permanently settling the claim of a maintenance holder of her husband s family, A third was borrowed for a purpose unspecified and the fourth was due upon a compromise decree obtained by the decree-holder of a usufructuary mortgage whose rights of possession she invaded.

(2.) It has not been shown that the income of the estate was insufficient to meet the demands for Government revenue and the maintenance of the family.

(3.) As it consisted of 73 acres of wet land in Tanjore District, the natural presumption would be rather that the widow must have been fairly well off. It is argued in respect of the third debt that, as it appears from one of the documents that the widow was put in possession of the mortgaged land by an order of a Magistrate, it is not likely that she acted mala fide. On the other hand it is clear that she had no prima facie right to appropriate the income which the othidar had a right to enjoy, and that the estate should not be made responsible for litigation arising out of her torts.