The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act (18 of 1937) and its impact on the devolution of property, the widow's interest, and the right to claim partition.

Sinha, J.

1. The first appeal arises out of a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Gaya, dated 1st April 1946, for a declaration that certain transfers made by defendant 7 in favour of the defendants-first-party, that is to say, defendants 1 to 3, were fraudulent without consideration and inoperative as against the plaintiff. The second appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Gaya, dated 31st July 1946, affirming that of the Subordinate Judge of the same place in a suit for partition. As both the cases arise out of a dispute relating to the estate of the late Babu Kamta Prasad, and the matters in controversy are, more or less, allied to each other, the two cases have been heard together, and this judgment will govern them both.

2. In the first appeal, the suit was commenced by Kedar Nath, brother of the late Babu Kamta Prasad, Mukhtar, who died sometime in November 1940, leaving him surviving his widow, defendant 7, and eight daughters, some married and others unmarried. The plaintiff claimed that Kamta Prasad died in a state of jointness with him, and that his widow and his daughters had no right except that of maintenance. The plaintiffs case further is that, on the death of Kamta Prasad, his widow, at the instigation of her sons-in-law instituted proceedings in the Land Registration Department in respect of certain estates which the plaintiff claims as joint family properties.

The dispute was settled by a compromise whereby the plaintiff got a moiety share, and defendant 7 the other moiety in respect of the properties in dispute in those cases, namely, the revenue-paying estates. The plaintiff characterized certain recitals in the petition of compromise as wholly irrelevant to the matter then in controversy, and therefore, not binding on the parties. Defendant 7, after the compromise effected on 22nd/28th July, 1941, executed three sale deeds in 1941, 1942 and 1944, ostensibly in favour of third parties but really, the plaintiff further alleged, for the benefit of her sons-in-law without any consideration and without any legal necessity. He, therefore, claimed a declaration that those transactions are not binding on the plaintiff. It will thus appear that the suit has been framed as one by the next reversioner for a mere declaration that the alienations made by a limited owner having a Hindu Womans estate were not binding on the reversion.

3. The suit was contested by the transferees chiefly on the grounds that the plaintiff had no locus standi, as a result of the compromise between him and defendant 7, to challenge the transactions, and that the alienations were for legal necessity, namely, for the marriage expenses of Kamta Prasads daughters and for other valid purposes.

4. The suit leading up to the second appeal was instituted by one of the transferees aforesaid from defendant 7. He claimed to have purchased for Rs. 5000 certain houses and homestead lands in the town of Aurangabad, that is to say, the moiety share in them belonging to defendant 7 as a result of the compromise between her and Kedar Nath. The transferee prayed for partition as against Kedar Nath.

5. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had acquired no title by virtue of the purchase aforesaid, inasmuch as his brothers widow, who had purported to transfer the properties to him, had only a claim for maintenance in the joint family properties. It was also contended that, the plaintiff having purchased an undivided interest, the suit was not maintainable.

6. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit for partition. Hence, the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court.

7. The common question raised on both the appeals on behalf of the appellant is that Kamta. Prasads widow had no right to make the alienations in question; that the alienations by the lady were all fraudulent and collusive and without consideration; and that they were really meant to benefit the several