These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Appeal No. 91-A of 1951 which was heard and decided by the learned Judge on 12-7-1952. The said Civil Appeal No. 91-A of 1951, in its turn, arose out of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Gondia, in Civil Suit No. 54-A of 1950 which was heard and decided by him on 27-10-1951. Second Appeal No. 651 of 1952 is filed by defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and Second Appeal No. 641 of 1952 is filed by defendant No. 2.

(2) These appeals raise a question under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956) and the question raised is whether the principle of reversion to the tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings of a Hindu leaving behind him surviving no issue but only a widow is saved from the operation of the Act. This point arises upon the following facts.

(3) The plaintiff who is one of the respondents in these appeals has filed Civil Suit No. 54-A of 1950 for a declaration that the alienations made by his deceased brothers wife Bhagirathabai, who is defendant No. 1 in this litigation, in favour of other defendants were made without legal necessity and, therefore, they were not binding upon him, It is to be noted that after the death of her first husband Narayan, Bhagirathabai remarried, and it is the contention of the plaintiff that the various alienations made by her were not binding upon him beyond her own lifetime or after her remarriage. The learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the alienations made by Bhaghathabai were without legal necessity. Feeling dissatisfied with the decree of the lower appellate Court, defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have appealed against it and these are those appeals.

(4) One Budhu who died in the year 1938 had two sons, Kothulal and Narayan. Kothulal is the present plaintiff. Narayan died in the year 1945, leaving: behind him surviving his two widows, Bagiratha and Mantura. Bhagiratha is defendant No. 1. There is no dispute that the two fields which are the subject-matter of this litigation, namely, khasra Nos. 183 and 553, belonged to Budhu. These lands, upon the death of Budhu, devolved upon his son Narayan alone. The reason for the devolution of the above-mentioned lands on Narayan was that during the lifetime of Budhu, Kothulal had separated from the family. Upon the death of Narayan, the lands were inherited by Bhagiratha and Mantura, and Bhagiratha made the following alienations thereof. She sold khasra No. 183 admeasuring 2.88 acres to defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on 23-6-1949 for Rs. 800. Then she sold 3 acres out of khasra No. 553 to defendant No. 3 for Rs. 1,500/- on 28-9-1949. Thereafter, on 12-10-1949, she sold 3.50 acres out of khasra No. 553 to defendant No. 2 for Rs. 2,000. It is these alienations which, says the plaintiff, were not made for any legal necessity, and, therefore, they are not binding upon him. The plaintiff says that he is entitled to declaration sought by him in the suit on the ground that he is the next reversioner to the estate of Narayan.

(5) The suit of the plaintiff is resisted by the defendants. They contend that the alienations made by Bhagiratha were for legal necessity. It is submitted on their behalf that Bhagirathas house was burnt and the plaintiff instigated her co-widow, Mantura, to remove the crops from the lands of Narayan. It is contended by the defendants that in these circumstances! Bhagiratha was left without any means of livelihood and had to incur debts, and it is said that the debts incurred by her were to the tune of Rs. 5,000. It is contended that it was in order to pay off those debts which were incurred by her to maintain herself that the above-mentioned alienations, all the three of them, relating to khasra Nos. 183 and 553 were made b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document