An alienation by a limited owner in Hindu Law is not absolutely void but only voidable and it may be avoided by the reversioners within the relevant period of time, and on such timely repudiation, it ceases to have effect.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an important question of Hindu law.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff who claims tote a permanent lessee from a Hindu lady brought this suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants who are father and son from interfering with her possession of the disputed tank. The defendant No 1 claims to be a part transferee of the suit tank from the reversioners after the female owner's death and his son defendant No. 2 appears to have acted for his father. If, therefore, the suit succeeds against defendant No. 1, it will succeed against both the defendants; if it fails against him, it will fail against defendant No. 2 also.

( 3 ) IN the plaint, there was no sepcific allegation that the plaintiff's lease was justified by "legal necessity" or on the doctrine of "benefit of estate", as applying to alienations by limited owners in Hindu Law, or on the theory of any "bona fide enquiry" on the plaintiff lessee's part as to the existence of such justifying causes.

( 4 ) THE defence, however, raised 'inter alia the question of justifying causes" in relation to the plaintiff's lease and contended that there were no such causes and, accordingly, the plaintiff's lease ceased to have effect, at any rate, on the female grantor's death.

( 5 ) THE Courts below have not examined the question of "justifying causes" or "bona fide enquiry", but they have concurrently held that, the plaintiff's lease being, at the worst, not void but only voidable in law, and it not having been set aside in any appropriate proceeding and the reversioners or their representatives not having taken any steps for the purpose, her present suit must succeed. The propriety of this decision is challenged by the defendants-appellants.

( 6 ) THE suit property is a tank, recorded in C. S. dag No. 624 of khatian No. 366 of Mouza Beluria in the district of Murshidabad. It originally belonged to one Raghunath Choudhury and, on his death, it devolved upon his daughter Sreemati Jalad Barani Devi. Jalad Barani died a childless widow aniat the time of her death, the defendant No. 1's vendors Satkari Mukherjee and Bisseswar Bidyaratna were the reversioners. During her lifetime, Jalad Barani had granted a permanent lease of the disputed tank to the plaintiff, but, as, on her death, the defendants threatened to disturb her possession of the same, she instituted the present suit for permanent injunction.

( 7 ) THE defence denied 'inter alia' the plaintiffs lease and also her story of possession but these defences have been rejected on the merits by the Courts below and they are no longer available to the present appellants. The other defence, however, that, the lease having been given by a limited owner without any justifying cause in the shape of "legal necessity" etc. , it cannot enure beyond the giver's lifetime, has been negatived by the lower Courts upon the view of law that, even though it might not have been given for any "justifying cause", it was valid until set aside by the reversioners or their representatives in appropriate proceedings and the question of "justifying causes" has not been considered at all.

( 8 ) IN my opinion, this appeal ought to succeed in part and the case should go back to the trial Court for considering whether the plaintiff's lease was justified by "legal necessity", or on the theory of "benefit of estate", or "bona fide enquiry", or whether it can be upheld, either in whole or in part, on the ground of express or implied affirmation by the reversioners. This implied affirmation may be founded 'inter alia' on waiver, estoppel or acquiescence.

( 9 ) THE lease in the present case purports to be a permanent lease from a Hindu female. It, therefore, stands on the same footing as an "alienation" by a Limited owner in Hindu Law. For its validity, so far as the reversioners are concerned, it must be supported by 'legal necessity", or on the theory of "benefit of estate", or "bona fide enquiry". In the absence of eit