JUDGMENT

P.C. Banerji, J. - I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my brother Tudball and I fully agree with it. There is nothing which I may profitably add without repeating what he has said.

2. Having regard to the recent pronouncements of their Lordships of the Privy Council which my learned colleague has quoted at length, it must be held that a suit by a reversioner for setting aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow in possession is brought by him in a representative capacity, that is, as representing the whole body of reversioners for the protection of the estate. A decree in such a suit is, therefore, binding not only between the reversioner who brought the suit and the transferee, but also as between the whole body of reversioners on the one hand and the transferee or his representative-in-title on the other. This is so, not because one reversioner must in that case be deemed to claim through another, but because the reversioner who sues represents the others and Explanation VI of Section 11 of the CPC comes into operation. In the Full Bench case of Bhagwanta v. Sukhi 23 A. 33 (F.B.) : A. W.N. (1890) 159 : 9 IC 1054 all that was held was that one rever