( 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 plain