In alienations by a Hindu widow, the onus of proving legal necessity rests on the purchaser. Recitals within the deed are insufficient; independent evidence (aliunde) is required to prove such necessity.

Mr. Ameer Ali:—

The suits which have given rise to this consolidated appeal from three decrees of the High Court at Allahabad relate to a property called Mouza Khilchipur lying in the district of Rae Bareilly in the United Provinces of India.

The Mouza is now in the possession of the defendant-appellant under a usufructuary mortgage executed in 1871, in favour of his ancestor Madho Ram by two Hindu ladies, Rukmin and Nimma, and one Dal Chand. Other titles were created subsequently in favour of Madho Ram or his son Darbari Lal, to some of which reference will be made in the course of this judgment. But the plaintiffs' claim to possession depends principally on their right to redeem the mortgage of 1871.

Mouza Khilchipur belonged originally to one Kundan Lal. He died many years ago, leaving two sons Mihin Lal and Sham Lal, who, it is not disputed, were joint in food and estate. Mihin Lal died in 1853, and Sham Lal in 1859, leaving his widow Nimma and a nephew named Lila Dhar, Mihin Lal's son. On Sham Lal's death, the whole property devolved on Lila Dhar. Lila Dhar died in 1861, when Rukmin, his widow, became the owner, taking a widow's estate under Hindu law. But although Rukmin as the widow of the last full owner was entitled to the entire property, it would appear that Sham Lal's widow claimed, or was acknowledged to possess, an equal interest with Rukmin. In 1862, the two widows jointly sold a half or 10 biswas share of the village to Dal Chand, who is said to have been Rukmin's manager. In 1871, the three, Dal Chand, Rukmin, and Nimma executed the usufructuary mortgage referred to above for a period of 12 years in respect of the entire Mouza represented as 20 biswas, in favour of Madho Ram, the conditions being that at the end of the term the debt would become satisfied and the mortgagors would recover the property without payment of the "principal mortgage-money" or interest. Dal Chand died, it is said, in 1873, and in 1874 his widow, Bhauna, sold the equity of redemption in respect of 8 biswas out of the 10 biswas he had acquired from Rukmin and Nimma to the son of Madho Ram, Darbari Lal, and his widow, Chando, one of the defendants in the present suits. The equity of redemption in respect of the remaining 2 biswas was sold in execution of a decree against Bhauna, and passed ultimately into the hands of the appellant.

It is unnecessary for the determination of this appeal to refer to the subsequent transactions by which Madho Ram's son acquired the equity of redemption in respect of the 10 biswas that had remained in the hands of Rukmin and Nimma after the sale of the moiety to Dal Chand.

The Brahman plaintiffs claim to be the reversioners of both Lila Dhar and Dal Chand. They allege that Bhauna, Dal Chand's widow, died in 1905, Nimma in 1906, and Rukmin a few years ago, and that upon their respective deaths whatever rights they had purported to create in favour of Madho Ram came to an end, and they are entitled to possession of the entire property. They have transferred a moiety of the Mouza with all the appurtenant rights to Inda Kunwar, who brings one suit in respect of the share purchased by her, whilst the Brahman plaintiffs have sued separately for the other share claimed by them.

With regard to the 10 biswas Dal Chand had purchased from Rukmin and Nimma, they allege that the sale of the equity of redemption in respect of 8 biswas by Bhauna was without legal necessity and that the execution sale of the 2 biswas was in respect of a personal decree against her, and that, consequently, neither transaction is binding against them.

The contesting defendants, the representatives of Madho Ram, denied that the Brahman plaintiffs were the reversioners of either Lila Dhar or Dal Chand; that their claim was barred by the Statute of limitation, as Rukmin, the widow of the last full owner, died more than 12 years before suit, and that, even if the Brahman plaintiffs were the reversioners of Lila Dhar or Dal Chand, the transactions impug