The interest of the widow succeeding to her husband's interest in coparcenary property under S. 3(2) of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937 continues till her death and on her death, the interest devolves on the husband's heirs in the absence of a coparcener.

Judgement

RAO, J. :- This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the confirming judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack dismissing the suit.

2. The plaintiffs case is that the disputed properties originally belonged to one Padmalay Panda who died leaving the mother of plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 2 as daughter and one Sadhu husband of defendant 4 as the only son; that Sadhu died in 1940 leaving a son Gopi and his widow defendant 4 but a year later, that is, in 1941 Gopi also died; that defendant 4 executed two sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 3 without any legal necessity or consideration; and that the suit is therefore filed for a declaration that the sale deeds are invalid and not binding on them.

3. The contention of defendants 1 to 3 is that mother of plaintiff 1 was not a daughter of Padmalay but was a daughter of a sister of Padmalav; that Padmalav had two brothers Kritibas and Lakshmidhar; that defendant 1 is the son of Kritibas and defendants 2 and 3 are the son and grandson respectively of Lakshmidhar; that as Gopi was the last male-holder, the plaintiffs are strangers and not entitled to sue; that they (defendants 1 to 3) are the reversioners entitled to succeed to the property on the death of defendant 4; and that the sale deeds were executed for due consideration and legal necessity. Defendant 4 filed a written statement supporting the contention of defendants 1 to 3.

4. The trial Court found that plaintiff 1 was daughter of Padmalay and not a daughter of a sister of Padmalay, but dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration sought for as they are not the nearest reversioners. He also held that only one of the sale deeds was supported by consideration and for legal necessity. With regard to the other sale deed he held that legal necessity was not proved fully.

5. The plaintiffs appealed and the appellate Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue but did not give a finding on the question of legal necessity for the two alienations.

6. Mr. G.K. Misra, the learned counsel for the appellants raises an interesting question of law under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act which arises in the decision of this appeal. He contends that Sadhu and his son Gopi were members of the joint family; that after the death of Sadhu in 1940 his interest in the joint family property devolved on defendant 4 under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act and Gopi and defendant 4 continued as members of the joint family; that after the death of Gopi defendant 4 succeeded to his interest as mother; that consequently defendant 4 is in possession 01 the property under two distinct, rights, namely, possession of half the property by virtue of her right under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act and possession of the other half by virtue of having succeeded by inheritance as mother to the share of Gopi; that therefore both the lower Courts erred in holding that Gopi was the last male-holder for the entire property; and that consequently the plaintiffs are not the reversioners and entitled to sue.

Mr. Misra contends that as far as Sadhus interest in the property is concerned, defendant 4 succeeded to the share by virtue of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act which is a statutory right and that as far as that interest is concerned, the last male-holder after her death would be Sadhu and not Gopi. He relies for this contention on the principle that after the death of Sadhu her husband, half his body survives in her and it is in consequence of this principle she was given a right to succeed to the interest of her husband by the Act and consequently after her death the last male-holder would be her husband and not Gopi as far as that interest is concerned.

7. The learned District Judge relying upon S. 27 at page 20 of Mullas Hindu Law which defines the last full owner of the property came to the conclusion that Gopi was the last full owner. In Mullas Hindu La