JUDGMENT - Kotval, C.J.

(1) This second appeal has been referred for decision to the Full Bench as it involves an important question as to the scope and effect of sections 2 and 3 of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act XVIII of 1937 as amended by Act XI of 1938. The facts upon which the questions arise fall within a narrow compass. One Yesu had two sons; Pandu and Goga. Pandu had a wife Dhondi and two daughters Jani and Patri. Pandu died in 1939 leaving behind his widow Dhondi, two daughters Jani and Patri and a widow of his predeceased son Sakharam. The name of the widow of the predeceased son does not appear on the record before us. Goga had two sons Santu and Bahiru. On 24th March 1939 a partition took place between Goga and Dhondi, the widow of his brother Pandu, and by that partition Dhondi was given the agricultural lands which were the subject-matter of the suit. They are lands admeasuring in all 21 acres and 11 1/2 gunthas. It appears that on the same day that the partition took place, Dhondi sold away the entire property to the 1st defendant Ranu Thaku Kokate for a sum of Rs. 300. After the sale Dhondi died in 1945 and after her Goga died in 1949.

(2) Now the suit was a suit for possession of joint family property. In the suit the plaintiff was Santu, the son of Goga. He joined his brother Bahiru as the third defendant because the latter declined to join with him as the plaintiff. The first defendant was Ranu Thaku Kokate, the purchaser of the lands, the second defendant was one Valu Gangaram Kanade who was joined because he was on the date of the suit recorded as the holder of some part of the lands sold by the deceased Dhondi; the third defendant was Bahiru Goga Bhangare (defendant No. 3) who, as we have said, was joined as a pro-forma defendant.

The plaintiff claimed that Dhondi being a limited owner had no right to sell the fields to the defendant No. 1, because they were joint family properties. The plaintiff claimed the properties as the reversionary heir to Pandus estate in the hands of Dhondi along with his brother the third defendant, after the death of Dhondi. They claimed that though Dhondi had claimed partition of the property from Goga in 1939 she still held the property as a limited owner and could alienate it only for legal necessity. The sale to the first defendant was without legal necessity and the plaintiff as reversionary heir had the right to suit, the first defendant, who was the purchaser, denied that Pandu and Goga were joint when Pandu died. According to him Pandu was separate from his brother Goga and Dhondi inherited his separate property and had a right to sell away the fields to him. In any case he pleaded that even assuming that Dhondi held the property as a limited owner, Dhondi sold them away for legal necessity. Her husband Pandu had some debts to pay and therefore, his widow Dhondi sold the property to discharge the debts. Moreover she had to maintain herself and her daughters and therefore there was legal necessity for the sale of suit lands. The second defendant adopted the defence of the first defendant. The third defendant, the brother of the plaintiff, filed no written statement.

The trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit. He held that the suit lands were sold for legal necessity and that the sale was binding on the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3, but in addition the trial Judge held that the plaintiff was not the reversionary heir of the deceased Pandu.

The plaintiff appealed and the Extra Assistant Judge at Nasik reversed the decision of the trial Court. He has held that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 were the reversionary heirs of the deceased Pandu. On the question of legal necessity for the sale of the suit properties he held that the legal necessity had not been established. In the result be held that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 were entitled to recover the property from the first defendant and granted a decree in their favour. The first defendant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document