Judgement

Appeal (No. 8 of 1921) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (August 9, 1918) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga.

The suit was brought by the appellants, who were the reversionary heirs to the estate of the late husband of the first respondent, for a declaration of their rights in certain property which formed part of his estate. The appellants asserted the invalidity of a transaction in the nature of a compromise entered into by the first respondent in 1912. The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, and his decree was affirmed by the High Court (Roe and Jwala Prasad JJ.) The learned judges were of opinion that there was no fraud, and that the plaintiffs had not shown that the compromise had been entered into by the widow (the first respondent) collusively for the purpose of conferring upon herself a benefit at the expense of the estate.

1922. May 8, 9. De Gruyther K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellants. The transaction was not within the powers possessed by a widow in possession of her husbands estate under the Mitakshara law. Upon the facts it was not a provident transaction