Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for declaration of title over the suit properties detailed in Schedule 1 to the plaint against the defendants has been dismissed holding that the suit was barred by law of limitation and that the plaintiff did not acquire title to the suit property on the strength of the sale-deed dated 28.1.1970 (Ext. 3). The suit was also hit under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and was thus not maintainable.
2. Admittedly Bhatu Choudhary of Dalsinghsarai had two sons, Bhaglu Choudhary and Murat Choudary. Bhaglu Choudhary died in the state of jointness with his brother. Murat Choudhary, leaving behind his son, Badri houdhary. Thereafter Murat Choudhary died issueless, leaving behind his widow, Champa Choudharain in the state of jointness with his nephew, Badri Choudhary, who had two sons, Ramchandra Choudhary the defendant No. 3 and Harihar Choudhary and a daughter Parwati. Harihar Choudhary left behind two sons Baijnath Choudhary, the defendant No. 4 and Gajendra Choudhary, who died issueless.
3. Title Suit No. 139 of 1952 was filed for partition, wherein it was held that Murat Choudhary died in the state of separation with his gotias and Champa Choudharain got only limited ownership on the demise of Murat Choudhary and the branch of Badri Choudhary got no concern with the estate left by Murat Choudhary during the life time of Champa Choudharain. However, she had no right to execute deeds of sale and/or gifts.
4. Champa Choudharain died in the year 1961 i.e., after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During her life time, she transferred plot Nos. 954 and 955 by a registered sale-deed to her relation Brijraj Choudhary, the defendant No. 2 who sold the same to Premlata Devi, the defendant No. 1.
5. On 28.1.1970, Ramchandra Choudhary aforesaid sold the aforesaid land with house standing thereon to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the defendant No. 1 to give up possession of the suit house, but she refused and hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff.
6. Admittedly the defendant No. 1 was not a party to Title Suit No. 139 of 1952 and the properties, which are subject matter of the present suit were also not the subject matter of the said suit. The house over plot Nos. 954 and 955 was constructed by Murat Choudhary and after his demise, it came in possession of Champa Choudharain, who on 3.2.1953 sold the same to Brijraj Choudhary for legal necessity and thereafter the defendant No. 1 purchased the same on 9.12.1958, by two registered sale-deeds from Brijraj Choudhary. After purchase the defendant No. 1 demolished the old structure and constructed a new house for godown purpose.
7. Title Suit No. 139 of 1952 was disposed of on 12.8.1955. It as held therein that Ramchandra Choudhary was a reversioner of Murat Choudhary. However, thereafter Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, with effect from 17.6.1956 and under the said Act right of Champa Choudharain became absolute over the estate left by late Murat Choudhary, her husband.
8. In the present suit Brijraj Choudhary, purchaser from Champa Choudharain was impleaded as defendant No. 2 and Premlata Devi purchaser from Brijraj Choudhary was impleaded as defendant No. 1 Baijnath Choudhary, son of late Harihar Choudhary, who was a co-plaintiff with Ramchandra Choudhary in Title Suit No. 139 of 1952 was impleaded as defendant No. 4.
9. In Harnath Singh v. Kallash Singh 1958 PLR Reports 285, a Full Bench of this Court held that a reversioner has got right to challenge the validity of an alienation made by a widow on the ground of want of legal necessity.
10. In the present suit the admitted position is that Murat Choudhary was owner of the suit property. He died issueless, leaving behind his widow, Champa Choudharain. In the earlier litigation between Ramchandra Choudhary and another and Champa Choudharain vide Title Suit No. 139 of 1952, it was held on 12.8.1955 that alienation without any legal necessity by Champa Choudharain were not binding on him.
11. A perusal of the sale-deed dated 3.2.1953, Ext. B/1 shows that necessity for transfer stood recited therein. Murat Choudhary had got constructed a well at Baidhyanath Dham for religious and spiritual purpose, which was on the verge of collapse and required urgent repairs and for that purpose, the land in question was sold. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on record found that it was a legal necessity and the said transfer was binding on the reversioners, including the defendant No. 3.
12. It is not in dispute that the necessity for which the land in question was transferred by Mostt. Champa Choudharain stood mentioned in the sale-deed,
Ext. B/1 itself and the trial Court on oral corroborative evidence of D.W. 15 accepted the same to be a transfer for legal necessity of the said widow.
13. In Mostt. Sheo Kuer v. Nathuni Prasad Singh and Ors. : [1976]2SCR1002 , effect of alienation by a widow, having only life interest in the property, for religious purpose was considered and it was held that alienation could have been made only for special purposes. The power of the Hindu female to alienated property was held to be wider in respect of the Act, which were supposed to conduce to the spiritual benefits of her deceased husband. In the present case it was not in dispute that a well was constructed at Baidhyanath Dham by the husband of Champa Choudharain during his life time, which was on the verge of collapsing and urgent repairs thereto was required. In such situation she was compelled to transfer the property in question to the extent of 2 kathas and 11 dhurs with structure thereon. In my opinion the said necessity of the widow and alienation by her was an act which conduced to the spiritual benefit of her deceased husband. In such situation she was entitled to sell the property, even the whole of it, if the income of the property was not sufficient to cover the expenses for such acts.
14. Further, since in the present case only a small part of the estate of her deceased husband was alienated vide Ext. B/l even if it is taken to be an alienation for pious observance of the widow, which were not essential or obligatory, she was within her power to alienate only the said small portion. At any rate the said transfer cannot be said to be unreasonable and excessive. I have used the word small portion' for the reason that P.W. 4 in paragraph 8, 6, 17 and 30 of his evidence stated that the deceased husband of Mostt. Champa Choudharain left behind several residential houses, shop rooms, and landed properties of more then two and half bighas at least.
15. In the aforesaid premises of facts, I am not inclined to disturb the findings of the trial Court that the transaction in question at the instance of Champa Choudharain, widow of late Murat Choudhary was binding on the reversioners of her deceased husband and even on her death, the defendant No. 3, being one of the reversioners did not acquire any interest therein and consequently the plaintiffs purchase was invalid.
16. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.