JUDGMENT

Rachhpal Singh, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The facts which have given rise to the second appeal may briefly be stated as follows : Babu Ram Narain was the owner of two-thirds share in the house in suit. Mt. Ganga Dei was his widow. They had a son, Babu Parshotam Naith, and one daughter, Mt. Nand Rani. Parshotam Nath's wife was Mt. Shama Kunwar. The family was a joint family governed by Mitakshara Law. On the death of Babu Ram Narain, his son Babu Parshotam Nath succeeded to the family estate by right of survivorship. He died in the month of June 1922 when his widow Mt. Shama Kunwar succeeded to the estate as a Hindu female. She died soon after her husband in the month of December 1922, when Mt. Ganga Dei, the mother of Parshotam Nath, the last male-holder of the estate, succeeded as a Hindu female.

2. On 13th April 1923 Mt. Ganga Dei, made a will in favour of her daughter, Mt. Nand Rani. The plaintiffs alleging themselves to be the reversioners of Parshotam Nath, instituted a suit in 1923, and in 1924 they obtained a declaration that the will was invalid. On 17th September 1928, Mt. Ganga Dei died.

3. A few months after her death in December 1928, the plaintiffs instituted a suit against Mt. Nand Rani and her son claiming possession over the estate as the nearest reversioners of Parshotam Nath. The claim, was resisted by the daughter on several grounds, but was decreed by both the Courts below. Mt. Nand Rani has come up in second appeal before this Court. The two pleas with which we are mainly concerned in this appeal were raised by Mt. Nand Rani in her defence. One was that she had defrayed the expenses of the funeral of Mt. Bhagwan Dei, and the other was that Mt. Bhagwan Dei before her death had been ailing for a number of years and a certain sum of money was spent by defendant 1 on her treatment. It was contended that the reversioners could not get the estate without paying the defendant No. 1 the amount spent by her on account of the aforesaid two items. Both the Courts below held that the defendant was not entitled to claim either of the two items. The two important points which we are asked to decide are: (1) Whether a person who has expended money on funeral expenses of the mother of the last male-holder is entitled to retain possession over the estate of the last male-holder till the funeral expenses have been paid. (2) Whether a person who has advanced money for medical treatment to the mother of the last male-holder in possession of his estate can claim to hold the estate as against the reversioners till those charges have been paid. The first thing which we have to bear in mind is that, we are dealing with the case of a mother of a deceased Hindu, governed by Mitakshara Law, and whose estate was in possession of his mother as a Hindu female. According to the provisions of Section 320, Succession Act (39 of 1925):

Funeral expenses to a reasonable amount according to the degree and quality of the deceased and death bed charges including fees for medical attendance, and board and lodging for one month previous to his death shall be paid previous to his debts.

4. This section makes it perfectly clear that reasonable funeral charges including fee for medical attendance and for board and lodging for one month prior to the death of the owner of the estate are, under the law of the country, to be paid before any other debt. The question as to whether a person spending money on these items can claim a lien over the estate however stands on a different footing. The provisions of the Indian Succession Act however cannot help in this case. The plaintiffs in the present case are not claiming the estate of Mt. Bhagvvan Dei but they are asking for possession over the estate of Parshotam Nath, who was the last male-holder of it. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant relied on observations made in Sarvadhikari's Hindu Law, Edn. 2, p. 10, where the learned au