A suit by reversioners for a declaration that settlements made by a widow are invalid is not maintainable after the estate has vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, as the right to receive rent has been wiped out and the reversioners have no interest in the property.

Mahapatra, J.

1. Defendants 1 to 4, who were defendants first party in the original suit, out of which this appeal arises, are the appellants. The other set of defendants, were transferees from defendants 1, 2 and 3. The suit by the five plaintiffs was for a declaration that the settlements of lands in suit by defendant No. 4, Dulhin Janak Dulari Kuer, in favour of defendants 1, 2 and 3 were not legal, effective, bona fide or binding on the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the presumptive reversionary heirs of Deonandan Prasad Singh, husband of defendant No. 4.

2. The defence, mainly on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, was that the settlements were bona fide and for legal necessity and they had been in possession since the settlement; the plaintiffs were not the presumptive reversioners of the deceased husband of the defendant No. 4; One Jadunandan Sharma alias Bachu Babu was the sisters son of the deceased Deonandan Singh and as such he was the presumptive reversioner; during his life time it was not open to the present plaintiffs to maintain the suit. It is significant to note here that in the written statement these defendants did not traverse the allegation made in plaint paragraphs 6 and 9 in regard to the cause of action that gave rise to the suit and also that the settlement by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 was in 1953 and the settlees came in possession also in the same year, (28-6-53).

3. The transferees from defendants 1 to 3 also filed a written statement and contested the suit. In the written statement filed by defendants 5 to 11 and 13, they alleged that the settlement in dispute had been made on the 25th Jeth, 1353 Fasli corresponding to 1946. They pleaded the bar of limitation of the suit on that account, as the suit was not instituted within six years from the date of settlement.

4. The trial court framed several issues on the pleadings of the parties and after consideration of all the evidence that were brought on the record, allowed the plaintiffs suit and granted the declaration sought for. It held, however, that Jadunandan Sharma was the sisters son of deceased Deonandan Singh and was the presumptive reversionary heir of the latter, but all the same, the plaintiffs could maintain the suit, because Jadunandan had colluded with Janak Dulari, defendant No. 4, and had concurred in the act, which is alleged to be wrongful. The trial court accepted the plaintiffs case that the settlement was not bona fide or for legal necessity or by way of prudent management of the estate by the limited owner. It is against this that the present appeal was brought by defendants 1 to 4.

5. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, challenged the finding of the court below in regard to the nature of the settlement and asserted that by way of prudent management of the estate, which came to the hands of Janak Dulari, she throught it advisable to settle about 80 bighas bakasht land with defendants 1 to 3, particularly in view of the agrarian troubles that had raised their head in this State, and also in view of the land reforms that were about to be initiated in the country, against the proprietors and the tenure-holders. The trial Judge has gone deep into evidence and has analysed the whole case, as advanced by the plaintiffs and the defendants, in regard to the disputed transaction. The conclusion arrived at by him seems to be inevitable.

6. Janak Dulari was in possession and management of the estate for over 25 years and had not found any difficulty in regard to her bakasht lands of which she had 130 acres. The land reform legislations had already come before the impugned settlement. Bakasht lands in possession of a proprietor were to be retained with him or her, even after the vesting of the estate in the State. That was then a very valuable item of property and parting with it can not he said to be an act of prudent management. The power of alienation beyond the life time of a limited owner is very restric