SUMITRABAI Vs. HIRBAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two sister appeals arose out of a. suit filed on 10th February 1920, by one Hirbaji and his assignee Muhammad Jafarkhan against Mt. Kausal widow of Hiralalsao for recovery of 14 annas 10 pies share of Mouza Kaweli. The following genealogical tree will facilitate the understanding of the contentions of the parties. CHANGO died 11-8-67 ____________________|_____________________ | | | Laxman=3 widows Bhagwat Rama Died 1886 | died 1897 died 1889 | | | _______|________ | _______|________ | | | | | | Sonka Turja Badja | | | died died died | Sapku Rukhan 1908 1905 1915 Hirbaji died 1905 alive Plff.

(2.) LAXMAN was according to plaintiff sole owner of 14 annas 10 pies share of the Kaweli. His widows sold it by Ex. D-14 dated 11th May 1901 to Hiralalsao the husband of Mt. Kausal and father of Mt. Sumitra without legal necessity. It was further alleged that Hirbaji and Rukhan inherited the property as reversioners in 1915 on the death of the last surviving widow of Laxman and that as Hirbaji sold the 14 annas 10 pies interest and Rukhan relinquished his share therein in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 the Tatter had a right to sue.

(3.) THE first Court had held before remand that mouza Kaweli was inherited by the three brothers from their father and was held by them as joint owners; but after remand, it gave contrary finding. The lower appellate Court after considering the whole of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the finding given before remand was correct It accordingly held that the plaintiffs' claim based on inheritance as reversioners was untrue and dismissed it as to 3/4ths share as barred by limitation and decreed it as to 1/4th on the ground that the sale though justifiable as a prudent transaction could not be upheld for want of legal necessity. Both parties have therefore appealed against the decision. I will deal with both these appeals in one judgment.