Lord Buckmaster :-

A person who deals with a Hindu widow having a limited estate must be aware that he may be called upon to establish the facts which justify the transactions under which he claims. The appellants in this case, who are the successors in title of one Rajkishore Mandal find themselves in that position.

Rajkishore Mandal entered into two transactions, in the one case with two Hindu widows, and, in the other case, with one. These transactions are now impeached, and the burden of proving them valid lies on the appellants. The first was a lease of the 17th September, 1869, which was executed by two Hindu widows, Prasanna Kumari Dasi and Bamakali Dasi. Their estate in the property arose in the following way. Prasanna was the widow of Madhusudan and Bamakali was the widow of Harinarayan his brother. Harinarayan, when he died, was entitled to an undivided third share in properties held jointly, and Madhusudan, who died in 1867, was entitled to the remaining two-thirds. The case that is suggested is that this lease was required for the purpose of raising the money necessary for the payment of debts and the performance of the shradh in connection with Madhusudan. Now Madhusudan