Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies only to properties possessed by a Hindu female at the date of the commencement of the Act and does not retrospectively affect pre-Act transfers made by Hindu widows.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the defendants and arises out of a suit instituted in Sub-Judge's Court, Midnapore, for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to 8 as share of the suit-properties and for recovery of possession thereof. The properties in question belonged to two brothers, Ramchand and Balaichand in equal shares. Defendants No. 5 to 7 are the heirs of Balai, Ramchand died leaving behind a widow Haripriya and three daughters and Haripriya inherited a widow's estate in his properties. She died in 1352 B. S. and was survived by two of the daughters, namely, Barada, a sonless widow, and Basanta Ku-mari, defendant No. 4, and by a son of the predeceased daughter named Sripati, defendant No. 3. Haripriya had during her lifetime sold her share of the properties of ka sch. of the plaint to defendant No. 1 and had executed two deeds of gift in respect of the properties of schs. kha and ga in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively. The plaintiff purchased 8 as share of all the properties from Basanta Kumari in 1353 B. S. after the death of Haripriya. He challenged the transfers made by Haripriya by way of sale and gift as without legal necessity and as such not binding on the sole reversionary heir Basauta Kumari and claimed to have acquired title to the properties by his purchase from the latter.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 pleaded that the sale to him was for legal necessity and was therefore binding on the reversioner Basanta Kumari. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that the gift to him was for religious purposes and hence bound the reversioner, while defendant No. 3 pleaded that he had been brought up by Ramchand who had expressed a desire to give him a share of the properties and that the gift by Haripriya was in pursuance of that desire and hence binding on the reversioner. Other objections raised in the suit are not material at this stage.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit and this decree was affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Midnapore. Both the Courts have concurrently found that Haripriya had a widow's interest in the properties and that the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 was not justified by legal necessity. This finding has not practically been challenged before us. No evidence of legal necessity was adduced by defendant No. 1 and no attempt was made to prove that Haripriya had any debts or was in want of any money for her maintenance, as recited in the document, or that the purchaser had made any enquiry worth the name.

( 4 ) AS to the gift in favour of defendant No. 2 the document recites that the donee was a deity named Hari Thakur represented by the defendant No. 2 as shebait. Both the Courts have found that no such deity was in existence and that the gift was also void as a gift for a charitable and religious purpose because it was not a gift for the spiritual welfare of Haripriya's husband. This finding has been challenged before us and it has been contended by Mr. Sen for the appellants on the authority of the decision in the case of Khublal v. Ajodhya, ILR 43 Cal 574: (AIR 1916 Cal 792) (A), and the Privy Council 'decision in Sardar Singh v. Kunj Behari, 49 IA 383: (AIR 1922 PC 261) (B), that the widow was entitled to alienate a small portion of the property inherited from her husband for pious and religious purposes which conduced to" the bliss of the soul of her deceased husband. II is not, however, necessary to decide in this appeal whether the gift could be upheld on that ground because, on the finding of both the Courts, the gift was invalid as being in favour of a non-existent deity. It has been found and is no longer in dispute that there is no deity in existence as Hari Thakur. There is only a place in the village covered by a mancha or platform with Tulsi plants where the villagers perform worship of Hari. But that place belongs to the landlords and no deity is installed there and there is no endowment in favour of Hari Thakur. The defendant No. 2 who claim