A Hindu widow, upon whom the interest of a member of the joint Hindu family devolves, has got no right of alienation even for legal necessity where her husband coparcener had no such right.

Ramratna Singh, J.

1. This Letters Patent appeal by some of the defendants arises out of a suit for declaration of title to, and confirmation of possession, or, in the alternative, recovery of possession, of 1 bigha 5 Kathas and odd land comprised in survey plot Nos. 65, 66 and 66/1421, in village Damodarpur alias Dumri. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court decreed it; and a second appeal was dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court. Hence, the present appeal.

2. The suit land belonged to one Deonarayan Thakur who died in 1945, leaving behind a widow, named Rajmato Kuer (defendant No. 7). He had a son, named Chaturbhuj, who died before 1937, leaving behind him a son, Shyamnandan (defendant No. 6), and a widow, Mossamat Sripato Kuer (defendant No. 8). The plaintiff-respondents first party acquired the suit land under a registered sale deed dated the 5th December, 1947, executed by defendant Nos. 6 and 8. The appellants, who are defendants 3 to 5, also took a sale deed in respect of the suit land, but it was executed by defendants 6 to 8. This sale deed purported to have been executed on the 26th November, 1947, but it was presented for registration on the 27th February, 1948 and was compulsorily registered under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act in October, 1948. Sometime later, the plaintiffs instituted a criminal case against the defendants for having cut and taken away some bamboos from a portion of the suit land, but it ended in acquittal. These facts are admitted.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they had a quarrel with defendants 1 and 2, because on the 8th January, 194S they got two sale deeds executed in respect of some other land, one by defendant No. 6 and the other by defendant No. 7, though the plaintiffs had got the sale deed, dated the 5th December, 1947, and another sale deed, dated the 18th September, 1947, executed by defendants 6 and 8 only; and, on account of this difference, defendants 1 and 2 got an ante-dated sale deed, which was registered in October, 1948, executed by defendants 6 to 8 on or about the 8th January, 1948 in favour of their relations, who are defendants 3 to 5. It was then alleged that defendant No. 6 had come in possession of all the properties of Deonarayan by right of survivorship and he executed several sale deeds in respect of Deonarayans properties prior to the purchases of the plaintiffs, and defendant No. 7 did not join any of these sale deeds. It was further alleged that, on the 3rd January, 1951, that is, five days before the institution of this suit, the defendants demolished a hut belonging to the plaintiffs on a portion of the suit land; and this was the cause of action for the suit.

4. In a separate written statement, defendants 1 and 2 said that they had no concern with the suit land or the sale deed in favour of defendants 3 to 5. The defence of the appellants, however, was that the sale deed of the plaintiffs was collusive and without consideration, and that the sale deed in favour of the appellants was in fact executed on the 26th November, 1947 and, consequently, they acquired a valid title and came in possession of the suit land. The allegation of the plaintiffs regarding demolition of any hut was denied. The alleged relationship between the two sets of defendants was also denied.

5. It is unnecessary to state the findings of the trial Court. The first appellate Court accepted the case of the plaintiffs that defendants 3 to 5 were relations of, or Closely connected with, defendants 1 and 2 and the latter got the sale deed in favour of defendants 3 to 5 executed on some date subsequent to the 8th January, 1948 and ante-dated with the object of defeating the claim of the plaintiffs to the suit land. It also accepted the plaintiffs case regarding possession over the suit land. These findings of fact were accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court; and the learned Advocate for the appellants conceded before us that he coul