Spencer, J.

1. This suit was brought by one of the reversioners to the estate of one Muruga Pillai for a declaration on behalf of himself and defendants 6 and 7 that the private sale of items 1 to 8 in the plaint schedule and the Court, sale of items 9 to 11 during the lifetime of Muruga Pillais widow (first defendant) are not binding beyond the lifetime of the widow, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower Appellate Court. The District Munsif dismissed the suit in toto.

2. In appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge held that the Court sale of items 9 to 11 was void and gave the plaintiff a decree accordingly. He held that the private sale of items 1 to 8 by the widow under Exhibit B was binding on the reversioners to the extent of Rupees 1,000 only and made that amount a charge on these items excepting item 5 and half of item 8.

3. The learned Subordinate Judges reason for holding the court sale to be void was that it took place on January 17th, 1916, after Muruga Pillai had died on December 16th, 1915, and that no representatives of the deceased owner were brought on the record. He was of opinion that the Court had no jurisdiction to sell the properties of a