1. This is defendant 1's appeal from the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1941, decided on 30-9-1942.

2. The case in outline is as follows. One Ghanshyam died on 1-7-1935 survived by his widows by name Mt. Chandrabhaga and Mt. Laxmi, and mother. Mt. Kasubai. On 26-7-1935, that is within a month of his death, Mt. Laxmi, alleged to be 20 years old, executed a deed styled as Farkatnama (a deed of relinquishment) on her own account and as guardian for Mt. Chandrabhaga who was described as a minor aged 15 years whereby she purported to relinquish the entire moveable and immovable property which devolved on her and her co-widow on the death of Ghanshyam.

3. In the mutation proceedings initiated by Mt. Kasubai (Ghanshyam's mother) the execution of the Farakatnama was admitted by Mt. Laxmi, but contest was raised on behalf of Mt, Chandrabhaga. The proceedings ultimately terminated in an order passed by the Honourable the Financial Commissioner on 19-12-1941 whereby Mt. Chandrabhaga's name was ordered to be recorded as a proprietor of her husband's share in mouza Dadhera. Pending those proceedings Mt. Chandrabhaga on 5-9-1936 applied for permission to prosecute a suit in forma pauperis.

4. That application was dismissed as it was found that she had been in posssession of ornaments of a value which would enable her to pay court-fees. Consequently, Mt. Chandrabhaga, alleging that she was born on 13-9-1921 instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, on 13-9-1941 on payment of full court-fees for a declaration that Farkatnama dated 26-7-1935 was void as against her on he ground that her co-widow Mt. Laxmi acting as her guardian had no right to relinquish the widow's estate, that she was neither de jure nor de facto guardian, that she, having been born on 18-12-1919, was herself a minor at the date of the Farkatnama and a victim of fraud and undue influence exercised by her mother-in-law, Mt. Kasubai, and persons interested in her. On these premises the plaintiff claimed possession of the entire property as described in Schedules A, B and C attached to the plaint or in the alternative half share thereof with mesne profits as set out in Schedule D.

5. As Mt. Kasubai had sold on 26-5-1939 to Ramji Tukaram Kunbi two houses described in Schedule A and on 20-4-1938 to one Doma, since deceased, some malik mokbuza fields NOS. 41, 50 and 51 of Mouza Agra, Tahsil Katol, Ramji and Doma's legal representatives Fakirya, Vithoba, Gangaram and Pundlik were impleaded in the suit as defendants.

6. Mt. Kasubai and her transferees contested the suit but Mt. Laxmi, who was impleaded as defendant 2, admitted the plaintiff's claim. Mt. Kasubai, in resisting the plaintiff's claim, denied that Mt. Laxmi was a minor when she executed the Farkatnama of 26-7 1935. She denied that Mt. Laxmi was born on 18-12-1919 and stated in general terms that she was born in the year 1915. She, however, conceded that a daughter named Gouri was born to Tukaram, Mt. Laxmi's father, on 18-12-1919, but averred that she died on 23-11-1920. She further denied that Mt. Chandrabhaga was born on 13-9 1921 but averred that she was born on 29-7-18. She admitted that a daughter had been born to Namdeo on 13-9-1921 and maintained that she was not Chandrabhaga but another girl by name Kawatuki. Mt. Kasubai repudiated the allegations of fraud and undue influence in regard to the execution of the Farkatnama by Mt. Laxmi.

7. The real nature of the defence of Mt. Kasubai can better be described in the words of her own written statement filed on 13-12-1941, viz.

It was therefore thought prudent that she should continue as de facto manager, and de jure character was to be conferred on her by this document to free the girl--widows of Ghanshyam from temptation not to remarry and lead an unhealthy life. The plaintiff was minor and defendant 2 would have been the natural and de facto guardian of the estate, being the senior widow. The