Probative value of consent of presumptive reversioner.

The Chief Justice.-We consider it desirable that this appeal should be heard by a Full Bench of three Judges. The appeal relates to one item of the properties left by one Maria Perayya who died in the early sixties of the last century leaving behind him three daughters Seshamma, Veeramma and Venkamma. Veeramma died first and Venkamma died last on the 15th July, 1929. Nearly twelve years after the death of Venkamma, the appellant sued to recover the properties alleged to belong to the estate of Maria Perayya claiming to be the nearest reversioner. This appeal relates to item 1 of the plaint schedule. On 16th May, 1892, Seshamma, Venkamma and Kamayya, the son of Veeramma who had died by then, sold this item to one Subba Rao for Rs. 200. The respondent is the successor-in-title of this Subba Rao. The learned Subordinate Judge of Coconada held that the alienation of this item was supported by legal necessity and was binding on the reversioner. On appeal, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal as regards this item. The respondent herein appealed to this Court in S.A. No. 1130 of 1945 and Govindarajachari, J., allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with regard to this item.

The sale deed Exhibit D-1 contains no recital as to the purpose of the sale. An attempt was made to adduce evidence of necessity on the ground that Seshamma and Venkamma were in impecunious circumstances, but that attempt failed. It was in evidence that the scribe and the attestors of the sale deed were all dead. So were the vendors and the vendee.

In upholding the alienation, the learned Judge relied mainly on the decision in Govindu v. Venkatapathi1 and the observations contained therein. In that case one Kondayya died about the year 1880 survived by his wife Peddamma alias Papamma who lived until 1st September, 1926. There was a suit on her death by the reversioners to recover possession of properties belonging to the estate of Kondayya which had been alienated by the widow. On 25th April, 1883 the widow had sold to her brother all the wet lands comprised in the estate for a sum of Rs. 100. The deed by which the lands were conveyed contained no recital about the purpose for which the alienation was made. The learned Judges, Leach, G.J. and Lakshmana Rao, J., held that the fact that the widow purported to sell to such a close relation as her brother nearly six acres of valuable wet land for the sum of Rs. 100 was sufficient in itself to cast doubt on the validity of the transaction. There was the further fact that the brother to whom the property was conveyed made a gift of a half of it to another brother eight years later. In the opinion of the learned Judges the fact that the widow sold the lands for such a small sum to one of her brothers, who later shared them with another brother, certainly gave reason for suspecting that her intention was to benefit the members of her own family. In those circumstances they thought it would not be equitable to draw a presumption in favour of the validity of the sale. They accordingly decreed possession of the lands to the reversioners.

Though actually the learned Judges refused to uphold the alienation which was the subject matter of the appeal, they made certain observations which were strongly relied upon by the respondent to this appeal and by the learned Judge who decided the second appeal. Leach, C.J., said at page 112 of the report:

" Where owing to the lapse of time it is impossible to produce evidence of necessity in support of an alienation by a Hindu widow or evidence of inquiry by the alienee and there is no ground for suspecting abuse by the widow of her power to alienate for a necessary purpose, we consider that the cases quoted provide ample authority for the Court disregarding the ordinary rule of Hindu Law and drawing an inference in favour of the validity of the alienation. In such circumstances it would be unreasonable not to recognise an exception to the rule; otherwise grave injustice mig