The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of legal necessity and bonafide enquiry in validating property alienation, as well as the applicability of relevant statutory provisions.

1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palghat in O. S.13 of 1951.

2. The suit was for a declaration that the alienation dated 1-8-43 by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant was not valid and binding upon the reversioners to the estate of deceased Srinivasa Iyer, after the lifetime of his widow, the 2nd defendant.

3. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the divided brothers of one Srinivasa Ayyar, the deceased husband of the 2nd defendant. Srinivasa Ayyar was an employee of the Central Bank of India and he died in October 1942.

4. The 2nd defendant, who is a childless widow of the said Srinivasa Ayyar, sold some items of properties on 1-8-43 to the 1st defendant for discharging the debts incurred by her deceased husband. The suit itself was for a declaration that the said alienation is not binding on the reversioners namely, the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.

5. The plaintiff's case was that the recitals in the sale deed dated 1-8-43 were all nominal recitals and that there were absolutely no debts to be discharged when Srinivasa Ayyar died. Further, it was stated that the properties had been sold for a grossly inadequate price It was also contended that the 2nd defendant, as the widow of the deceased Srinivasa Ayyar, got Provident Fund amount from the Central Bank and as such, there was no necessity for making alienation of the suit properties.

6. The 1st defendant, the purchaser, contended that the recitals about the debts mentioned in the sale deed in his favour were all true and binding debts. He also pleaded that he has actually discharged those debts which the widow was bound to do. It was further pleaded that he made very honest and bonafide enquiries and satisfied himself that the widow had no other way of discharging the debts. He finally contended that the properties were purchased by him at the correct market price and the plaintiff's allegations of gross undervaluation were not correct.

7. The widow of Srinivasa Ayyar, who was the 2nd defendant, also filed a written statement standing by the transaction of sale executed by her in favour of the 1st defendant. She contended that the house which was sold was a very dilapidated one not fetching any substantial rent and she also stated that she had come away to Trichur and as such, there was no necessity for owning that dilapidated house. Regarding the lands that were sold, she has also stated that only those properties which were Kanom and which were fairly difficult to manage that were sold away.

8. Regarding the debts, she has given necessary facts to show that they were genuine and binding debts incurred by Srinivasa Ayyer and subsisting on his death. She further pleaded that in order to have a peaceful life after the death of her husband she squired up the dispute with the 3rd defendant who was one of the creditors and ultimately, there was a safe of the properties for the discharge of the binding debts of Srinivasa Ayyer. Regarding the Provident Fund, no doubt, she claimed a special right in those funds for herself. She also pleaded that the properties were sold after making due enquiries about the market value prevailing at that time.

9. Though the genuineness of the debts stated in the suit document were challenged in the plaint, during trial the plaintiff did not dispute those debts. The learned judge also has considered the evidence and come to the conclusion that the debts mentioned therein are true. The learned judge also found as a fact about the discharge of those debts by the 1st defendant, as part of the sale consideration for the suit document Ext-B5. Even though the plaintiff challenged the adequacy of the price for the sale-deed, in his plaint, he has conceded before the trial court that he is not challenging that aspect of the case. But the learned judge held that the debts of Srinivasa Ayyar could have been discharged by the 2nd defendant from and out of the Pr