The judgment established the principles of legal necessity in Hindu Law, the concept of estoppel in the context of reversioner's consent to a transaction, and the entitlement of a limited owner to alienate property for specific purposes.

Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiffs suit is for possession of one-fourth share of the family property and for a declaration that certain alienations are invalid. In this appeal the property in dispute is comprised in Schedule B to the plaint. The District Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs suit so far as the B Schedule property is concerned. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. The first point raised by Mr. Bhashyam for the appellant is, that what was sold to the 58th defendant under his mortgage decree was only the life-interest of the plaintiffs mother. In support of that contention he relies upon Ex. E-3 which is a statement put in by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 34 of 1901, who was the mortgagee decree-holder, and who brought the property to sale under his mortgage decree obtained against the plaintiffs mother Alamelammal. One of her suns brought a suit for a declaration that the property was the property of his father and the alienation by the mother was not binding upon him and upon his brothers. After the written statements were put in, the 2nd defendant, the decree-holder, consented to having the properties sold without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. The argument advanced by Mr. Bhashyam is that the mortgagee decree-holder by putting in this petition consented to have only the life-interest of the mother sold in execution of his decree. His contention is not supported by the pleadings in the case. Unfortunately the plaint in O.S. No. 34 of 1901 has not been filed in this case, but there is the statement of the 1st defendant, the mother, Ex. E-1, from which it is clear that the plaintiff contended that the property was the property of the father and not that of the mother, and the plaintiff did not set up the contention that even if the property was the property of the mother, she only had a daughters interest and, therefore, what could be sold was only her life-interest. In paragraph 1 of Ex. E-1 the 1st defendant Alamelammal says: ?" The suit property belongs to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has no concern and enjoyment whatever therein. It is not even the plaintiffs ancestral property. The 1st defendant got it ancestrally and is enjoying it with patta from 1858." Paragraph 2 makes the matter clear: "The plaintiffs father instituted a suit in O.S. No. 452 of 1898 in the District Munsifs Court, Chingleput, against this defendant for recovery of the suit property and some other property. It was decided that the property belonged to this defendant and the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed." In the light of the pleadings in O.S. No. 34 of 1901 it cannot be said that the plaintiff and his brothers put forward the case that the mother was only entitled to a life-interest as a daughter and they were entitled to the reversion. In the absence of such a contention in the pleadings and in the absence of an issue to that effect it cannot be said that the 2nd defendant consented to selling only the life-interest of the 1st defendant Alamelammal. What he says in Ex. E-3 is, " If there be any right for the plaintiff in the aforesaid properties, I consent to Have the auction sale effected without going against that right. " The meaning of that sentence is, that if the plaintiffs have any claim to the property, that is, as being their ancestral property, such a right would not be affected by the auction sale. It cannot by any process of ingenious reasoning be contended that by Ex. E-3 the 2nd defendant consented or agreed to have only the life-interest of the mother sold in auction.

3. The property was purchased by the mortgagee who was the 58th defendant in the present suit. He was in possession from the date of the sale. Alamelammal, the mother of the plaintiff died in 1918. The plaintiff, her third son, has brought this suit for a share of his mothers property and for a declaration that the alienation made by her in favour of the 58th defendant is invalid and is not binding upon him. Ex. XX is the deed