Udaichand Vs. Surajmal

civil procedure code - framing of issues & evidence act--section 116--purchaser landlord files suit for ejectment against tenant--tenant challenges owner's right to alienate property--whether tenant estopped from disputing owner's right to sell.;the applicant had executed a rent note in favour of b who was the owner of the property. if the plaintiff purchase is able to prove that the applicant's possession over the premises under a lease from b the applicant would be estopped under section 116 of the evidence act from disputing that the owner of the property.;(b) transfer of property act - & hindu law--alienation of property without legal necessity--whether void.;the law is settled that an alienation without legal necessity is not void but only voidable at the option of the next reversioner.;(c) hindu law - alienation of property of the religious endowment without legal necessity--whether alienation can be challenged by a person who has no interst in property.;whether alienation can be challenged during life time of transferor. - - having heard the learned counsel for the parties, i am satisfied that the order of the trial court is proper......it was prayed on behalf of the applicant that issues should be framed on the question as to whether bhoordas was the mahant of dadoo samaj, and if so whether the was legal necessity for the alienation. the, trial court decided to frame these issues. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, i am satisfied that the order of the trial court is proper.3. if the plaintiff is able to prove that udaichand applicant obtained possession over the premises under a lease from bhoordas, the applicant would be estopped under section 116 of the evidence act from disputing that bhoordas was the owner of the property on the date on which the applicant took it on lease from him. it is no doubt open to the applicant to show that bhoordas subsequently lost his title to the property as was held by their lordships of the privy council in kumar krishna prasad lal singha dev v. bhoordas coal concern ltd. air 1937 p.c. 251. but it is not the case of the applicant that bhoordas lost his title alter the date of the lease.4. so far as the question of legal necessity is concerned, the law is settled that an alienation without legal necessity is not void but only voidable at the option of the next reversioner. in the case of a religious endowment, it may be possible to permit any person having sufficient interest in the endowment to challenge the alienation. no such interest has been pleaded in this case. even if the applicant had pleaded that he had sufficient interest in dadoo samaj to be able to challenge the alienation he could only do after the death of bhoordas. an alienation without legal necessity by bhoordas cannot be challenged in his lifetime.5. i accordingly dismiss the revision application with costs.