Judgement

Appeal (No. 144 of 1919) from a judgment and decree (February 23, 1917) of the High Court affirming a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga.

The respondents, as the reversionary heirs of one Bachcha Chowdhury, a deceased Hindu, governed by the Mithila school of Hindu law, sued for a declaration that certain alienations of the movable and immovable property made by the first appellant, the surviving widow of the deceased, were void and inoperative beyond her life. Most of the property alienated had formed part of the estate of the deceased husband, but part was alleged to have been purchased by the first appellant, or by her and her co-widow, out of the income of the husbands estate. The appellants by their written statement pleaded (inter alia) that under the will of Bachcha Chowdhury his widows acquired an absolute interest in his property; they also denied that the purchased property was bought out of the income of the estate. The terms of the will and the material facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The High Court (Roe and Chapman JJ.), affirming the Subordinate Judge, held that the widows took under the will merely a Hindu widows estate,