Judgement

SHELAT, J.: This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether an exchange of land situate in Sonthal Parganas or land situate elsewhere is invalid by reason of the provisions of S. 27 (1) of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 3 of 1872. It is not in dispute that the lands in question, set out in Schedule B to the plaint were raiyati lands and were governed by the said Regulation.

2. The appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellants for a declaration of title and possession of lands described in Schedules B, C and D to the plaint. The lands belonged to one Tonu Mandal who died several years ago leaving him surviving two daughters, Manoda and Nilmoni Dasi. Manoda died in 1940 and Nilmoni Dasi died in 1948. On the death of the said Tonu Mandal, the two daughters inherited his property as limited owners. There was a settlement thereafter between them as a result of which the said Manoda got 10 annas share and the said Nilmoni Dasi got 6 annas share in the said properties. On Manoda s death, Nilmoni Dasi succeeded to her share. Consequently, Nilmoni Dasi was possessed of the entire property of Tonu Mandal as a limited owner. The said Nimoni Dasi had four sons, all of whom died during her lifetime. She left, however, grandsons surviving her. These grandsons were defendants first party in the suit and Schedule D properties were in their possession at the time when the suit was filed. The said Nilmoni Dasi had executed a sale deed in 1314 Bengali Sambat Year in respect of Schedule properties in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the defendants third party and these defendants were in possession of those properties at the date of the suit. In 1295 Bengali Sambat Year, she had also executed a deed of exchange in favour of one Premmoyee Dasi under which she gave away Schedule B properties in exchange for Schedule E properties situate in village Sokrul. In accordance with the said exchange, the names of the two ladies were recorded as raiyats of the respective properties. The descendants of the said Premmoyee Dasi were defendants of the second party and were in possession of Schedule B properties at the date of the suit. The defendants of the first party were in possession of Schedule E properties.

3. The said Tonu Mandal had two brothers, Santusta Mandal and Bhim Mandal. Plaintiff 2 was the sole surviving descendant of Bhim Mandal when the said Nilmoni Dasi died, and plaintiff 1 and the defendants of the fourth party, Kalipada and Gobind, were the surviving descendants of the said Santusta Mandal at that time. Under the Dayabhaga law by which the parties were governed, the two appellants (plaintiffs) and the defendants of the fourth party were the nearest reversioners of the said Tonu Mandal after the death of Nilmoni Dasi and were entitled to succeed to his estate, the share of the appellants and that of the defendants of the fourth party being equal. The said Gobind Mandal died while the suit was pending and his sons and widow were brought on record as his legal representatives.

4. The appellants case was that the said sale deed in favour of the defendants of the third party and the said deed of exchange in favour of the said Premmoyee Dasi were not valid and binding on them, being neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate of Tonu Mandal and that defendants of the first party had no right, title or interest to the properties in their possession after Nilmoni Dasi died. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the said sale and the said exchange were for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate and that as they were in possession of the said properties for a very long time their title thereto had ripened in any event by adverse possession. The trial court and the District Court in appeal concurrently found that the said Nilmoni Dasi was in possession of schedules D and E properties and though the defendants of the first party took possession on her death of the said p