1. This appeal raises somewhat complex questions of Hindu law, and, therefore, has been heard by a Bench. The material facts, so far as they have been ascertained up to the present, may be stated briefly. One Bhagwan Kunbi was the occupant of a one-third share in each of Survey numbers 27 and 28 and of the whole Survey number 71 of Manatri in the Akot Taluq of West Berar. He died about five years before this suit, leaving two widows Bhagai and Gopi and an only daughter Bhimai, apparently by a predeceased wife. The widows Succeeded to his estate, and by an arrangement made between, themselves, whereof the details have not been ascertained, Bhagai became the sole occupant of the share in Nos. 27 and 28, while Gopi became the sole occupant of No. 71. Mt. Bhima was a minor at the time of her father's death, and seems to have lived with and been maintained by her step-mothers thereafter. It is not known what property other than the above fields Bhagwan left ; nor is there anything to show that the widows at partition, relinquished their rights of survivor ship inter se.

2. On the 1st July 1907, by a deed duly registered, (Exh D-6) Bhagai sold the shares in Survey No. 27 and 28 to the defendant Tukaram for Rs. 600. Again on the 11th June 1909 Bhagai executed another deed Exh D-5, purporting to sell the same fields to the same vendee for another Rs. 450. The Courts below have found that the sale was not made for any legal necessity such as would bind the estate after the death of Bhagai, but this finding will have to be reconsidered from a fresh standpoint for reasons which will be given hereinafter. Gopi, the co-widow of Bhagai, is said to have died in 1908, but it has not been ascertained in this suit what became of Survey No. 71 on her death.

3. On the 9th April 1912 a suit (No. 155 on the file of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Akola) was filed against Tukaram and Bhagai by Bhaoji, the husband of Bhimai (also called Bhimi) for and on behalf of his wife who was described as a minor, claiming a declaration that the alienation made by Bhagai in favour of Tukaram was not binding on the reversionary interest of Bhimi. On the 18th October 1912, in consideration of Rs. 700 paid to her by Tukaram, Bhimi, acting sui juris, executed a deed of sale, Exh. D-1 in favour of Tukaram, whereby, after reciting that her title had been recognized by Tukaram, she transferred to him her right, title and interest in Survey Nos. 27 and 28, and agreed to withdraw her above suit. It may be mentioned that Bhagai sided with her daughter in that suit, and, representing Tukaram's deeds of 1st July 1907 and 11th June 1909 as fictitious, said that the declaration claimed by Bhimai might be decreed. This conduct is important as showing Bhaghai's attitude at this time towards her own act of alienation. The above confession of judgment took place on the 15th August 1912. Issues were framed on the same date, and some evidence was taken on the 4th October 1912. Then followed the compromise above-mentioned between Bhimai and Tukaram ; and, on the 15th November 1912, Bhimai appeared in Court personally and declared that she was 22 years of age sui juris. Her husband Bhaoji, who had posed as her next friend in the suit, supported her statement ; and Tukaram's pleader admitted that it was correct. The pleader for Bhagai said that he did not know whether or not Bhimai had attained majority. It seems clear that, with the habitual disregard of truth, in connection with business and litigation, to which the people of Berar appear to be given, Bhimai was first described as a minor to give a supposed strength to her position as a plaintiff seeking to avoid an alienation of ancestral estate ; while, owing to the difficulties and weakness of a compromise made with a minor, or because the necessity of appearing before a registering officer made the further concealment of her age impossible, she was subsequently transferred to the position of a major. In the registration en