Misra, C.J.

This reference to the Full Bench has arisen in the following circumstances. The plaintiff-appellant in stituted a suit for a declaration that defendant no. 7, Musammat Etwaria, had no right, title or interest in the properties described in schedules nos. 2 to 4 of the plaint, and that she was not competent to execute the two deeds of sale in respect of these properties in favour of defendants nos. 1 to 4 or a deed of gift in favour of defendants nos. 5 and 6. The following genealogy may be set out here to explain the legal stand of the plaintiff with regard to the properties in suit:

Nepal Hajam

Lalji Hajam Deo Hajam

= widow Harbasia. = widow Etwaria (D. 7)

Motijhari. Pan Kuer. Bhageran

(plaintiff)

The case of the plaintiff was that Lalji Hajam and Deo Hajam, the two brothers, were members of a joint Hindu family. Lalji died about 26 years ago, leaving him behind Harbasia, his widow, and Deo Hajam died 22 years prior to the date of the suit, survived by his daughters, Motijhari and Pan Kuer, and his son, the plaintiff, as also his widow, Etwaria. The properties were acquired by Deo Hajam either by purchase or by exchange. The plaintiff's mother, Musammat Etwaria, was under the influence of her son-in-law, the husband of Pan Kuer, and was not a clever woman. Defendants nos. 1 to 4 as also Jattu Hajam, the husband of Pan Kuer, persuaded her to execute a sale deed in favour of defendants nos. 1 to 3 and another in favour of defendant no. 4 and a deed of gift in favour of defendants nos. 5 and 6 on the 27th of June, 1958, Defendant no, 7, being a widow, was only entitled to maintenance out of the properties of her husband, and she had no legal right to execute deeds of transfer in respect of these properties in favour of defendants nos. 1 to 6. Besides the sale deeds having been executed without consideration, defendants nos. 1 to 4 acquired no manner of title under these documents.

2. In defence, defendants nos. 1 to 4 pleaded, in a common written statement, that the plaintiff was not the son of Deo Hajam but of Lalji Hajam, Deo Hajam died leaving behind defendant no. 7, Musammat Etwaria (his widow), and his daughter Pan Kuer. Defendant no. 5, Pan Kuer, was the daughter of Deo Hajam, and defendant no. 6 was the son of Pan Kuer and grandson of Deo Hajam. Motijhari was not the daughter of Deo Hajam, but a sister of the plaintiff himself. Deo Hajam died not 22 years ago, as alleged by the plaintiff, which would put the date of his death some time in 1937; but he died some time in 1944.45, the suit having been instituted in 1959. The plaintiff was trying to overreach Musammat Etwaria, defendant no. 7, by getting the rental of the land assessed in his name, taking advantage of the fact that Musammat Etwaria was getting all her business transacted through the plaintiff. Defendant no. 7 was a clever lady, and she sold the property after receiving full consideration.

3. On a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Munsif decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was the son of Deo Hajam, and that Deo Hajam died 25 years before the institution of the suit, and, as such, Etwaria acquired no title to the properties in the name of her husband under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, as it did not come into operation on that date. He held further that Musammat Etwaria had no legal necessity to sell her property. The recital of legal necessity in Exhibit B-1, the sale deed, was not substantiated, and the sale deed executed by her would not bind the plaintiff. It may be added that the suit was compromised between the plaintiff and defendants nos. 5 to 7, and hence the Munsif decreed the suit on the terms of compromise against defendants nos. 5 to 7 and on contest against defendants nos. 1 to 4.

4. On appeal, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Gaya, affirmed the finding of the learned Munsif that the plaintiff was the son of Deo Hajam, but allowed the appeal and dismis