The central legal point established in the judgment is that a widow, after becoming the full owner of a property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has the legal right to alienate the property, uninhibited by the restrictions applicable to a Hindu coparcener under Mitakshra Law.

V. Nath, J. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of affirmance by the appellate court below upholding the dismissal of the suit.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed no. 3562 dated 01.06.1987, sale deed no. 3563 dated 01.06.1987 and sale deed no. 3564 dated 01.06.1987 are illegal, void and inoperative document and not binding on the plaintiffs. The prayer has been made to cancel those sale deeds and further prayer has been made to restrain the defendants for interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the lands described in Schedule B and Schedule C of the plaint.

3. The genealogical table is not in dispute between the parties according to which Diya Singh had three sons namely Akalu Singh, Mosafir Singh and Jamindar Singh who succeeded to the properties of Diya Singh after his death. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Akalu Singh separated from his two brothers Mosafir Singh and Jamindar Singh, and in state of separation he died in the year 1932 leaving behind his two sons, Deorajit Singh and Gaju Singh. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Gaju Singh died issueless in the year 1942 leaving behind his wife Bachkalo Kuer, in jointness with his brother Deorajit Singh, his nephews Sheodayal Singh, Ramgovind Singh and Ramdeo Singh. His wife Bachakalo Kuer thereafter continued in jointness till her lifetime. Sheodayal and Ramdeo Singh died unmarried and issueless. Ramgovind Singh alongwith his son and grandsons as plaintiffs in the suit have challenged the three sale deeds by Bachakalo Kuer, executed separately in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 01.06.1987, mainly on the ground that Bachakalo Kuer had continued and died in jointness with the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property, and therefore, had no right to alienate the same and further also on the ground that no consideration had been paid to Bachakalo Kuer and the sale deeds had been obtained fraudulently taking benefit of diminished power of understanding of Bachkalo Kuer. The three sale deeds in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been described in detail in Schedule A and Schedule B of the plaint.

4. The defendant no.1 Deo Sharan Singh did not contest the suit. The defendant no.2 Ram Singhasan Singh and defendant no.3, Ramayan Singh have filed a joint written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the contesting defendants that Gaju Singh had separated from his brother Deorajit Singh and after his death his widow Bachakalo Kuer had inherited the properties left behind by him. The contesting defendants have also asserted that Most Bachakalo Kuer had not lost her power of understanding and had executed the sale deeds out of her freewill and consent after receiving valuable consideration from the defendants. These defendants have therefore claimed their sale deeds, executed by Bachakalo Kuer in their favour, to be legally valid transactions conferring valid title and possession over the purchased properties and have alleged that the plaintiffs have filed the suit malafidely in order to grab the properties of these defendants.

5. The trial court, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, has returned the finding that Most Bachakalo Kuer was not joint with the plaintiffs and she had all the valid legal right to alienate her property after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It has also been held that the contesting defendants had paid full consideration money to Most Bachakalo Kuer who handed over the registration receipts. The possession of the contesting defendants over the suit land has also been found. The suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case for cancelling the sale deeds in question.

6. In appeal by the plaintiffs, the appellate court reappraised the evidence of the parties and has come to the conclusion that Bachakalo Kuer had the legal right to alienate th