Alienation by widow binding on the reversioners.

Satyanarayana Rao, J.-This appeal raises the question of the binding nature of an alienation on the reversioners to the estate of one Srinivasa Raghavachari. The appellants, defendants 3 to 6, who are the representatives of the alienee, substantially failed, though the findings of the learned Judge are mostly in their favour and hence this appeal.

In this suit the plaintiffs impeached also another alienation in favour of the 7th defendant. ‘They succeeded in the trial Court but there is no appeal by the unsuccessful defendant.

Notwithstanding the extraordinary precautions taken by the alienee and the assurance given at the time of the alienation by the plaintiffs’ father who is a graduate and their maternal grand-uncles who are advocates the alienee could not but face a litigation, unrighteously, as it seems to us, instigated and conducted by the plaintiffs father who was responsible largely for bringing about the alienation for his own benefit This Court, however, not being a Court of morals, is not entitled to decide the case on these considerations and we have to meet out justice according to wellestablished principles of Hindu Law. Srinivasaraghavachari, the last male owner died in 1808, and left behind him the first defendant, then a young widow aged seventeen years and a daughter, the second defendant. The estate then consisted of 85 acres of wet land and 35 acres of punja in Devanathan village and 250 acres roughly in Parithipattu village near Avadi. These 250 acres consisted of wet and dry lands. There were also two houses, one in Big Street, Kumbakonam, and the other in Sannadhi Street, Conjeevaram, besides some shops in Conjeevaram. He left also debts to the tune of Rs. 4,000 to 5,000 and cash in G. P. Notes of Rs. 12,000 and jewels worth about Rs. 4,000 to 5,000. There was also the mother of Srinivasaraghavachari who survived him and the G. P. Notes of the value of Rs. 12,000 were utilised in settling her maintenance claim. In or about 1910, the marriage and nuptials of the second defendant were performed at a cost of nearly Rs. 18,000 for which purpose the lands of the extent of 250 acres in Parithipattu near Avadi was sold. The estate which the first defendant inherited from her husband was looked after and managed by her father till 1905 when he became a sanyasi. The father also was a rich man owning properties worth 2 lakhs. After the death of the father, the first defendant managed her estate and perhaps after the marriage of the second defendant, the son-in-law also assisted her in the management. It is in evidence that the estate was not fetching sufficient income to meet the requirements of the family. There were also litigations pertaining to the estate which involved the estate in heavy expenditure. The first defendant’s son-in-law, the second defendant’s husband, started in 1920 a cinema business which resulted in loss and the mother -in-law purchased the lands of the son-in-law in Kannivakkam and discharged his debts to the extent of about Rs. 20,000. As the result of the property of the son-in-law having been lost, his family became entirely dependent upon the first defendant and the estate of Srinivasaraghavachari. The second defendant has a number of children, three boys and five girls leaving out a child which died. The maintenance and education of the children and the medical expenses of the second defendant who was constantly ill as well as of her husband Sundaravaradachari had to be met by the first defendant from the estate. In 1928 the eldest of the daughters of the second defendant, Komalavalli, had to be married and expenses had to be incurred for that marriage and later for her nuptials in 1930. The first defendant has got five brothers, the maternal uncles of the second defendant. Of these Mr. C.V. Rajagopalachari, D.W. 2 is an Advocate at Madras and C.V. Jagannathachari is a leading member of the Bar at Kumbakonam. As there were pressing debts to be paid, the plaintiffs’ father and