ORDER

A civil litigation initiated in the year 1954 is yet to reach finality. This appeal filed by the successors of the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad on 20th January, 1981 in second appeal No. 2064 of 1972 and the connected case, second appeal no. 2694 of 1972. The High Court in the judgement under challenge set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court confirming the judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit and passed the decree on the following terms:

"In the result, second appeal No. 2694 of 1972 is dismissed.

The second appeal No. 2064 of 1972 is allowed. The decree under appeal is set aside. Instead, there shall be a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,500/- (one thousand five hundred only) with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6 % per annum in favour of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and Balchand, defendant No. 17 (respondent No. 2), against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 or their representatives, who are respectively Ghanshyam Das appellant No. 6, Smt. Radha Devi and Mohan, respondent Nos. 5 and 6; and Munni Lal, appellant No. 5 and there shall be a charge for recovery of the decretal amount against the property in suit in the hands of Shankar Lal, defendant No. 14, who is appellant No. 1.

In the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs throughout including the costs in this Court."

2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the question raised may be stated thus:

One Mathoo was the original owner of the suit property comprising of a plot of land with four shop rooms (Nos. 26-29) on it. In the suit the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profits etc. alleging inter alia that they are the next two reversioners of the last male holder Ganney, the only son of Mathoo and in that capacity they are entitled to get the property after the death of Jasoda - the widow of Mathoo. The defendants 3, 4, 5, 13-15 were the contesting defendants in the suit. It may be stated here that defendant no. 3, respondent no. 3 herein described as Ram Janki Birajman Mandir, Jhansi City (Uttar Pradesh), which as stated by learned counsel appearing for the party is running a Vidya Mandir School on the said property.

3. The main question for consideration in the case relates to validity of the alienation of the suit property by Jasoda in favour of Ram Chand @ Mani Ram in the year 1934. The question for consideration is whether this document is a deed of gift or a sale deed. The trial court held it as a deed of gift which finding was accepted by the first appellate court. However, the High Court took a different view and held it to be a sale deed. The further question that arises for consideration is whether the transaction is one of sale and whether it was supported by necessity/legal necessity. The position is not disputed that if the transaction is held to be one of the outright sale of the property supported by necessity/legal necessity then the plaintiff who claimed it as reversioner will have no right therein. If, on the other hand, the document is construed to be a deed of gift then Jasoda being a limited owner, the alienation will be valid and effective during her lifetime and thereafter the property is to revert to the next reversioner of the last male holder.

4. Jasoda became a widow in 1907. She lost her daughter in 1908 and her son Ganney, in 1909. Baldev, son-in-law of Jasoda had intervened in the property on the basis of a deed of gift allegedly executed in his favour in January, 1928 by Jasoda with the condition of payment of Rs. 8/- per month for her maintenance which he could not fulfil. Thereafter he (son-in- law) gave his consent for the alienation of the property by Jasoda in favour of Ram Chand @ Mani Ram in 1934 (exhibit E-4). As noted earlier, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court construed the document to be a deed of gift. On the question of legal n