A widow's alienation of her husband's property without legal necessity or adverse possession against her by a stranger does not affect the reversioners' estate. However, if the widow surrenders her life interest to the reversioners, the surrender is valid and the reversioners are entitled to possession immediately.

Narayan, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants, and the appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with regard to certain immoveable properties which once belonged to one Nohar Rai. Nohar Rai had six sons, Dudhnath, Harnandan, Sheonandan, Jadu, Misri and Bhadu. Sheonandan, Jadu and Misri died issueless. Dudhnath had six sons, out of whom three are plaintiffs in this suit. Dudhnaths son Mahatim Rai died leaving his son Bihari Rai who is plaintiff 4 in this action. Deokaran Rai, one of the sons of Dudhnath, is defendant 1, and his three sons are defendants 2, 3 and 5. Narain Rai, another son of Dudhnath, had died issueless. Plaintiff 5, Girja Prasad Rai, is the son of Inderdeo Rai, plaintiff No. 1. The case for the plaintiffs is that Sheonandan, Jadu and Misri had died in a state of jointness with their other brothers and the other members of the family, and that the branch of Dudhnath .Rai separated long ago after taking one-third share in the family properties. The branches of Hamandan and Bhadu are said to have remained joint after the separation of the branch of Dudhnath, and according to the plaintiffs allegation they have remained all along joint in property and business, accordingly Brahmadeo, the son of Harnandan, & the deceased husband of defendant 5 & Kapildeo & Banarsi, the sons of Bhadu, were jointly recorded with regard to 10 annas 4 pies share, and the plaintiffs were recorded in respect of 5 annas 4 pies share." Kapildeo was the husband of Mt. Naurangi Kuer, defendant 6, and Benarsi was the husband of Mt. Jagrani Kuer who died in the year 1945. Later on, defendant 1 separated from the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs still continue to be the members of a joint Hindu family.

The allegation of the plaintiffs is that Brahmadeo died in 1325 Fasli, and thereafter Kapildeo died and Banarsi died last of all. It was contended by the plaintiffs that after the death of Jagrani in the year 1945 the plaintiffs and defendant 1 are the persons entitled to inherit the properties which have been described in Schedule A of the plaint and which originally belonged to the sons of Nohar Rai, but that the defendants 1st party in collusion and con cert with the two widows, defendants 5 and 6, did not allow the plaintiffs to enter into possession and themselves took possession of the entire properties. It is further stated that defendant 1, Deokaran Rai, had brought the three ladies under his influence and had got the name of his son, defendant 2, entered in the Land Registration office with regard to the entire properties. The plaintiffs, therefore seek a declaration that after the death of Jagrani, plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are en titled to three-fourth share in the properties, that defendant 1 is entitled to one-fourth share and that the ladies, defendants 5 and 6 are entitled only to maintenance. Consequent upon a declaration of their title they seek to recover possession of the disputed properties. The alternative relief prayed for is that if the plaintiffs be held to be not entitled to possession of the disputed property or any portion of it, then it be declared that the action taken by defendants 5 and 6 for giving the property to defendant 2 will not be binding on the plaintiffs after the death of defendants 5 and 6.

Defendants 2, 5 and 6 resisted the claim on various grounds. Substantially, their defence was that all the sons of Nohar Rai were separate from one another, and while Dhanbrata Kuer, defendant 5, came in possession of the properties left by Brahmadeo as his widow, after the death of Kapildeo who was the male owner of the properties, which had been allotted to the branch of Bhadu Rai, his widow Mt. Naurangi, came in possession of the properties. Defendants 5 and 6 had, according to the authority which they had received from their respective husbands, put defendant 2 in possession of the properties left by their husbands, and defendant 2 has by the efflux of time acquired an ab