Mahapatra, J.

1. The facts leading to the present appeal by defendant No. 1 may be stated in brief as follows: One Srimati Manorama Mazumdar, widow of Girish Chandra Mazumdar, the d on the 25th of April, 1936 leaving three daughters, Srimati Nirmala, Srimati Urmila and Srimati Amala. She had two other daughters, Srimati Framila and Srimati Simla who had predeceased her. Of the three surviving daughters. Srimati Amala the d on the 19th July, 1936 and Srimati Nirmala in 1939. Srimati Urmila is defendant No. 2 in the present suit and her son is defendant No. 3. Defendants 4 and 5 are sons of Nirmala and Bimala, respectively. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are sons of Framila deceased. An item of house property consisting of half of the suit house was acquired by Manorama Mazumdar by way of gift from a relation, and she was the absolute owner thereof. Similarly, another item of property, which was the adjoining half of the house already acquired by Manorama, was purchased by Amala out of her earnings, and she constructed a house on that land herself. She was the absolute owner thereof.

2. On the death of Manorama Mazumdar in April, 1936, Srimati Amala inherited her property as a Stridhan heir. She thus came in possession of both the halves of the suit house, one which had belonged to Manorama and the other belonging to herself. Within three months of the death of the mother. Amala the died in July 1936. Srimati Ninnala and Srimati Urmila, the two other surviving daughters of Manorama inherited Manoratnas property. They also inherited Amalas portion of the house as Her Stridhan heirs. While both the sisters were thus in possession of the suit house, Nirmala died in 1939, in which case Urmila, the present defendant No. 2, succeeded to the suit house and came in possession exclusively. She had no doubt a limited interest in the suit property as a limited owner. On the 23rd of November, 1942, however, she executed and registered a deed of sale in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the whole house which stands on holding No. 292 of the Giridih Municipality, for Rs. 600.00 only. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, claiming as reversioners, to challenge that alienation, on the ground that it was without legal necessity. They asserted that they along with defendants 3 to 5 were the next reversioners to the estates of Manorama and Amala.

3. The trial court decreed the suit and granted a declaration that the impugned transfer was without legal necessity and was not binding against the plaintiffs. It, however, held that as Srimati Urmila, defendant No. 2, was still alive, the transfer would enure till heri death, and the purchaser, defendant No. 1, would be entitled to remain in possession till that time. Against this the present appeal was preferred by defendant No. 1 in this court.

4. When it came for hearing the following contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant: (1) Manorama Mazumdar and Amala Mazumdar were Brahmos and were to be governed by the Indian Succession Act and not by Dayabhag School, for purpose of succession to their estates. (2) Under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiffs had no locus standi as reversioners to challenge the alienation as Srimati Urmila, defendant No. 2, became an absolute owner after that Act came into force, and her transferee, defendant No. 1 would be deemed to have taken such absolute title by his purchase. (3) Even if Srimati Urmila did not acquire absolute title and was a limited owner, on her death the heirs, who would succeed to the estates of Manorama and Amala, would be the heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . In that case the plaintiffs would not be such heirs (reversionary heirs).

This court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that both Manorama Mazumdar and Amala Mazumdar belonged to the Dayabhag School of Hindu law and Manorama and her daughters were married according to the Hindu form and not under the Spec