ATMARAM Vs. UMEDSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Gangaram Singh was the owner of the field in dispute. At his death, which took place 35 years ago, he left behind a widow by name Kapuri and a daughter by name Kesarbai. Kapuri thus inherited her husband's estate and was in possession of the field in suit until she sold the same to one Rupram by a deed dated 8th April 1898 (Ex. D-2). She died on 8th September 1921. Kesarbai and her son Atmaramsingh, with a view to raise funds for this litigation, sold their interests to plaintiff 1, Umedsingh, by a sale-deed dated 25th June 1924 (Ex. P-1). The vendors and the vendee, however, instituted the present suit jointly on the ground that the sale was inoperative after Mt. Kapuri's death. It may be mentioned here that the original purchaser, Rupram, by a subsequent transaction, dated 5th February 1906, sold his interest to defendant 1; the latter resisted the claim on various grounds, principal amongst them being that the sale to Rupram was supported by legal necessity.

(2.) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that the sale to Rupram was not for legal necessity and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants' appeal to the Court of the Additional District Judge being unsuccessful, they have come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.