A transfer without legal necessity does not convey full ownership, and the transferee acquires only the widow's estate, which does not affect the interest of the reversioner.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 3 to 5 are the appellants. The following geneology would show the relationship of the parties. GORACHAND MOHANT=lata (widow)| __________________________________________ | | | Sukria Nali (D-1) Nilamoni plff-1 =genesh (D-3) | | ______________________ | | | dharmu (D-2) Purna (Plff-2) Pratap (Plff-3)Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming one third share for plaintiff 1, one-third for plaintiffs 2 and 3 and one-third for defendant 1. The disputed properties belonged to Gorachand. On his death his widow Lata inherited these properties as a limited owner. On 8th May, 1946, she executed a registered deed of gift in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of Schedules B/1 and B/2 of the plaint and delivered possession. Plaintiffs filed original suit No. 138 of 1946-47 in the Court of the Munsif of Baripada challenging the alienation and obtained a declaration that it was not binding on their reversionary right beyond the life time of the widow. As both the Courts below have decreed the suit for partition in respect of the entire properties and as there is no dispute amongst the parties that schedules B/2 to b/4 are liable to partition, the history of previous litigation with regard to schedules B/2 to B/4 need not 69 mentioned. On the 13th February 1957 defendant 2 re-transferred schedule B/l property in favour of Lata by a registered document (Ext. B) styling it as "dana PRATYAHARA PATRA". On 19th October 1957 Lata transferred this very property by a registered sale deed (Ed. A) in favour of defendants 3 to 5. She died on 11th February 1958 whereafter the suit for partition has been filed.

( 2 ) THE defence is that Lata acquired full ownership after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act) and the transfer by Ex. A conveys full title in schedule B/1 property to defendants 3 to 5. The defence with regard to the properties in other schedules need not be mentioned in view of the undisputed position already stated.

( 3 ) MR. Mohanti advanced the following contentions:- (

i) The registered deed of gift dated 8th May 1946 executed by Lata in favour of defendant 2 is void ab initio and transfers no title to defendant 2 whose possession after the transfer was that of a trespasser:

(ii) As the transfer was void, Lata was in possession of schedule B/1 property at the time of the commencement of the Act and held the property as a full owner and not as a limited owner. Though on that date defendant 2 was in actual physical possession, his possession was that of a trespasser without acquiring a title by prescription, by being in possession for more than 12 years. The possession of such a trespasser is the possession of Lata in law within the meaning of Section 14 (1) of the Act; and

(iii) As Lata was full owner, her transfer in favour or defendants 3 to 5 by registered sale deed dated 19th October 1957 (Ex. A) is valid and cannot be questioned By the plaintiffs who are not reversioners.

( 4 ) THE first contention of Mr. Mohanty that the deed of gift dated 8th May 1946 executed by Lata in favour of defendant 2 is void ab initio and conveys no title in favour of defendant 2, is based on a fundamental misconception of law. As was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kalishankar Das v. Dhirendranath, AIR 1954 SC 505, the interest of a Hindu widow in the properties inherited by her bears no analogy or resemblance to what may be described as an equitable estate in English law and which cannot be followed in the hands of a 'bona fide' purchaser for value without notice. The Hindu widow's estate has been described as qualified proprietorship with powers of alienation only when there is justifying necessity, and the restrictions on the powers of alienation are inseparable from her estate. For legal necessity she can convey to another an absolute title to the property vested in her. If there is no legal necessity, the transferee gets only the widow's estate which is not even an in