A reversioner who consents to an alienation by a widow and takes benefit thereunder is estopped from avoiding the transaction.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under C1. 15 of the Letters Patent is against the judgment and decree of Justice Seshachelapati in S. A. No. 270 of 1959. The short point involved relates to the binding effect of Ex A-1 dated 19-6-1921 on defendant No. 1, Subbamma, who acted upon it and got benefit thereunder not only in her personal capacity but also as guardian of Nagarathnamma, her minor daughter.

( 2 ) A brief statement of facts is necessary to fully appreciate the point raised. The following is the genealogical table which gives the exact relationship of the plaintiff and the defendants. Ammayamma--Narayanappa--Munemma 1st wife----2nd wife Mangamma (daughter of 1st wife) Ankayya --Subbamma (D-1) Nagarathnammajayamma Munilakshmamma (D-2)- (D-3)Gangulu P-1 and P-2. The suit property comprising a house situate in Tirupathi originally belonged to one Narayanaiia. He had two wives, Ammayamma and Munemma, and a daughter Mangamma by his first wife. Ammayamma pre-deceased Mangamma. The 1st defendant Subbamma is the daughter of Mangamma Subbamma had three daughters. Nagarathnamma the mother of plaintiffs 1 and 2, Jayamma defendant 2 and Munilakshmamma. After the death of Narayanappa the suit house devolved upon his surviving widow Munemma. On 19-6-1921 Munemma settled the said suit house on Subamma and Nagarathnamma who along with Mangamma were living together in the same house Nagarathanamma was then a child of three or four years and in Ex A-1 she was represented by her mother and guardian Subbamma Mangamma, who was the next reversioner, was ailing for a long time. She eventually died in 1935. Shortly thereafter in 1939 Munemma passed away. Then in the next year Nagarathnamma also died. The house, after Ex A-1 was registered in the municipal records in the joint names of Subbamma and Nagarathnamma and this state of affairs continued until 1941. All of them were living together in the same house. A few years after the death of Nagarathnamma, however, Subbamma executed an instrument dated 20-4-1944, i. e. , Ex. A-2, setting the entirety of the suit house on her second daughter Jayamma and her husband and 3rd defendant Krishnaswami. The said Krishnaswami happened to be the real brother of Subbamma. On the death of Nagarathnamma, which took place in 1940, plaintiffs 1 and 2, her sons, became entitled to her share under Ex. A-1, which was one half of the suit property. The execution of a settlement deed by Subbamma in favour of Jayamma and her husband gave occasion for the plaintiffs to file the suit in the year for partition of the suit house into two equal shares and for possession of one such share together with profits for six years prior to the suit at the rate of Rs. 8 2 per year.

( 3 ) SUBBAMMA resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. Her contention was that Munemma had only a life estate in the suit house and could not pass under Ex. A-1, an absolute title in favour of Subbamma (her own self) or her daughter Nagarathnamma. At the time of Ex. A-1 Subbamma could not have been considered as a reversioner as her mother Mangamma was alive Eventually by virtue of Act II of 1929 daughters also entered the group of reversioners. It was ten years later that Munemma died. When succession opened on the death of Mangamma by reason of the said Act Subbamma as reversioner became statutorily entitled to a life estate in the said house. Therefore, her contention is that in that capacity she continued her possession of the said property and a few years later executed settlement deed in favour of her daughter, Jayamma and her husband. Her further contention is that after the death of 1st defendants husband, she made an equitable settlement of all properties of her husband between the surviving parties including the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs had no further claim. The 3rd defendant, the husband of Jayamma, claimed that in the event of plaintiffs claim being upheld, he is entitled to reimbursement in a sum of Rs. 2000 on account of imp