PAWADEWA Vs. VENKATESH HANMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit to recover possession of certain property and the facts found are that the property originally belonged to one Malam, who died leaving a widow Bandeva and three sons, the eldest being Chanbasapa. All three sons were born deaf and dumb, and as they were therefore disqualified from inheriting, the widow Bandeva succeeded to the estate of her husband. In October 1900 she sold the property in suit to the plaintiffs.

(2.) After Malam's death, Chanbasapa, the disqualified son, married, and a son, defendant 2, was born to him before the widow's sale to the plaintiffs. This son, who admittedly suffers under no disqualification, was not conceived till after the inheritance had passed to Bandeva.

(3.) The plaintiffs suing on the sale-deed were met by various defences, as that the sale was fraudulent; that it was made without consideration; that it was made without necessity; and that the sons of Malam were not born deaf and dumb. On all these defences the findings of the Courts below are conclusive against the defendants, and Mr. Rao does not seek to reopen any of these matters now. He puts this appeal on a point of pure law, which is very briefly referred to in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The contention is that Bandeva, succeeding to her husband, took only a widow's estate, and that estate was divested by the second defendant, the after-born son of Chanbasapa.