JUDGMENT

Seth, J. - These two appeals arise out of the same suit, which was partly decreed by the Civil-Judge of Aligarh. F.A. No. 392 of 1939 has been filed by the first three defendants to the suit and the appellant in F.A. No. 427 of 1943 is the plaintiff to the suit. The suit related to the estate of a Gujerati Brahmin, Jani Shyam Shankar alias Shyaman Shankar.

2. Jani Shyam Shankar died on 11th April-1914, leaving him surviving a widow, Mt. Chunni Kunwar, and five daughters. The widow continued in possession of the estate of her husband till her death in the year 1936. During this period, she made certain alienations. The plaintiff, Mt. Rasili Kunwar, is a daughter of a deceased daughter of Shyam Shankar, named Mt. Maggo Kunwar, and she claims under an alleged will of Shyam Shankar. The suit was brought against 19 defendants. The relationship of the first 15 defendants inter se and their relationship with the plaintiff will appear from the following extract of pedigree taken from a larger pedigree set out in the plaint.

                             AMBA SHANKAR                                  |           --------------------------------------------          |                                            |    Lakshmi Shankar                              Ballabh Shankar          |                                            |    Chunni Kunwar                            ----------------------    = Shyam Shankar                         |                      |          |                            Ratan Shankar          Mathura Shankar          |   ------------------------------------------------------------------------  |                  |                    |             |                  |Mt. Maggo Kunwar  Mt. Jhajoo Kunwar  Mt. Channa       Mt. Rangili       Mt. Chhabili Kunwar   |             (died issueless)  Kunwar (Deft. 1)  Kunwar (Deft. 2)       (Deft. 3)Mt. Basili Kunwar  (Plaintiff)

3. The three surviving daughters of Shyam Shankar were impleaded as the first three defendants and the sons of Ratan Shankar and Mathura Shankar as defendants 4 to 15. The transferees from the widow, Mt. Chunni Kunwar, were impleaded as defendants 16 to 19. The plaintiff alleged that the transfers made by the widow were not justified by any legal necessity and were not binding upon her. She, therefore, prayed for possession of a one-fifth share in the estate of Shyam Shankar, including the property in the possession of the transferees, and also for a decree for mesne profits. The property in suit consists of zamindari property mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and house property mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. The defendants denied the will and alleged that Shyam Shankar had died intestate. The transferees further pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value and that the transfers in their favour were made for legal necessity and were binding on the plaintiff. It is not necessary to mention other pleas raised in defence because they have not been pressed before us.

4. The Court below found that, having decided to make a testamentary disposition of his properties, Shyam Shankar dictated a draft of his will four days before his death and subsequently approved it and that the said draft, which is Ex, 31 of the record, constitutes a valid will of Shyam Shankar, according to which the plaintiff is entitled to a one-fifth share in his estate. The Court below further found that of the four transfers made by the widow, Mt. Chunni Kunwar, the transfers in favour of Manohar Lal, defendant 17 and Mt. Raj Rani, defendant 19. were made for justifiable legal necessity and were binding on the plaintiff, while the transfer in favour of Mt. Brij Dulari, defendant 18, was not made for any legal necessity and did not therefore bind the plaintiff. The Court found the mortgage in favour of Mt. Parbati Kunwar, defendant 16, to be finding to the extent of Rs. 640-7-0 only.' On these findings the Court below gave the following decree to the pla