The judgment emphasizes the need for legal necessity or benefit to the estate in transactions involving widows and the protection of their interests.

Narayan, J.

1. This is a defts. appeal, & it arises out of a suit for a declaration that the pltf. is the nearest reversionary heir of one Bhagwati Prasad Singh, & that a mukarrari deed executed by the widow of the said Bhagwati Prasad Singh is a collusive & fraudulent document, & not binding on the pltf. Bhagwati had a brother named Kailashpati who died in a state of jointness with him leaving a widow. Mt. Parbati Kuer, &, according to the pltfs. case, a daughter, Lachhmina Kuer, & a daughters son, Mahabir Singh After the death of Bhagwati Prasad Singh, Parbati Kuer, the widow of Kailashpati, applied for the registration of her name in the Land Registration Dept. with regard to one half share in the zamindari properties which had belonged to Bhagwati Prasad Singh & Kailashpati Singh; but her appln. was contested by Mt. Deomurat Kuer, the widow of Bhagwati Prasad Singh, & was ultimately rejected. The properties left by Bhagwati Prasad Singh had come into possession of the deft, l, Mt. Deomurat Kuer, as his widow, & the pltfs. allegation is that Sant Prasad Singh, the son-in-law of Kailashpati Singh, & Mahabir Singh, Kailashpati Singhs daughters son, began to manage the properties of the lady. Sant Prasad Singh & Mahabir Singh have been impleaded as defts. in this suit, & it is said that they in collusion & concert with one Babu Amirchand Lal, the husband of Deokumari Devi (deft. 4), & the father of Brijnandan Sahay (deft 5) got the mukarrari deed in question executed with regard to 240 bighas of land at a nominal jama of Re. l per bigha. The consideration mentioned in the document is Rs. 8000 which is the amount of nazrana; but it is alleged that this amount was never paid, & that the recitals in the document about the payment of consideration are all wrong.

2. Sant Prasad Singh, Mahabir Singh, Deokumari Devi & Brijanandan Sahay contested the suit, & their contention was that the pltf. was not the reversionary heir of Bhagwati Prasad Singh, having never any connection with this family; that the deft. 8, Mahabir Singh, was Bhagwati Prasad Singhs daughters son & hence his nearest reversionary heir; & that the mukarrari deed was a genuine & valid document executed for legal necessity & binding on the reversioner.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the pltf. was the nearest reversionary heir of Bhagwati Prasad Singh, & that Mahabir was not his daughters son. But the mukarrari deed in question was held by the learned Subordinate Judge to be a genuine document binding on the reversion. The suit was accordingly decreed in part by the Ct. below.

4. The applts. before this Ct. are Sant Prasad Singh & Mahabir Singh, the defts. 2 & 3 respectively, & the pltf. Charitar Singh & deft. l, Mt. Deomurat Kuer, have filed cross-objections.

5. The contention of the applts. is that the Ct. below was wrong in holding that the pltf. was the nearest reversionary heir of Bhagwati Prasad Singh & in overruling the plea of the defts. that Mahabir Singh was his daughters son. The pltf.s cross-objection is directed against the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the mukarrari deed is a document binding on the reversioner & the cross objection by defendant 1 is directed against the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that; the pltf. is the nearest reversionary heir of Bhagwati Prasad Singh & also against his finding that the mukarrari deed is a genuine & valid document. This lady, Mt. Deomurat Kuer, has instituted a suit for a declaration that the mukarrari deed in question be declared null & void as this document was obtained from her after practising fraud upon her. This suit is still pending in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad.

6. Mr. D. N. Varma for the resp. 3 in whose name the mukarrari document stands argued before us that under the law the cross-objection filed by the pltf. & the lady Mt. Deomurat Kuer could not be entertained by this Ct.

7. The most vital point in this case is whether the pltf. resp. Chari