The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of adverse possession in property disputes under Hindu law, and the consideration of pious and meritorious acts, such as marriage expenses, as valid justifications for property mortgages.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale of a house and lands (Ex. X) executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the 3rd defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs beyond the lifetime of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is the daughter of one Tirupati Ramarao who died without any male issue leaving him surviving his widow Janaki Bai and his daughter the 1st defendant. The case for the plaintiffs is that the suit properties belonged to Ramarao and devolved on Janaki Bai by right of inheritance and on her death, on the plaintiffs and that the said alienation by the 1st defendant was not for any legal necessity. The case for the defendants is that the property was the absolute property of Janaki Bai, that she gifted it to the 1st defendant in or about 1904, that ever since the said date she had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and acquired title thereto by adverse possession. The 1st defendant also pleaded that the said sale was made for discharging a prior mortgage which was executed for a necessary purpose, namely, for discharging certain debts incurred for repairs to the house, for medical treatment and for obsequial ceremonies of her mother and for the marriage expenses of her daughters daughter. She also denied that plaintiffs are the reversioners. The learned District Munsif found that the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Ramarao and also of Janaki Bai, that the property belonged to Janaki Bai, that though the property was gifted to the 1st defendant in 1904, she did not acquire title thereto by adverse possession because Janaki Bai died within twelve years before succession opened, that the mortgage for the discharge of which the sale was executed was valid only to the extent of Rs. 600 on the ground that that sum must be deemed to have been spent towards the necessary expenses binding on the estate and that the balance of Rs. 1,200 spent for the marriage expenses of her daughters daughter was not a legal necessity and that the said sale was therefore binding upon the plaintiffs only to the extent of Rs. 600. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the finding as to the status of the plaintiffs as the reversioners of Janaki Bai and also in regard to the question of adverse possession. He upheld the sale in its entirety on the ground that the amount borrowed for the marriage of the daughters daughter of the 1st defendant was for a necessary purpose. He took the view that the marriage of the daughters daughter was a proper religious object which would conduce to the spiritual benefit of the 1st defendants father Rama Rao and her mother Janaki Bai.

2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs and on their behalf their learned Counsel Mr. Bhujanga Rao contended that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in regard to the expenses incurred towards the 1st defendants daughters daughters marriage was wrong and that, in any event, the amount borrowed was excessive. The questions therefore to be decided are, (1) was the amount borrowed for the expenses of the said marriage for a necessary purpose so as to bind the estate, and (2) was the amount of Rs. 1,200 spent in connection therewith proper and justifiable if not, what is the reasonable amount that can be allowed?

3. Before dealing with these questions, I shall deal with the argument of Mr. Venugopalachari on the finding of the lower Court in regard to the question of adverse possession. He contended that the finding was wrong and if it was decided in his favour, the decree of the lower Court could be supported on that ground. He put his argument thus : long before succession opened the property was gifted away by Janaki Bai to the 1st defendant and from the date of the gift the 1st defendant was dealing with the property in her own right and when Janaki Bai died she did not take the property as her heir but continued to hold it adversely to the estate and no suit hav