Law:

Section:

Hindu Law------   -----Alienation by widow-Necessity-Existence of immediate female reversioner does not preclude presumptive reversionary heir to full ownership of estate from maintaining suit for declaration that alienation by widow was not justified by legal necessity-Impleading of intervening female reversioner not necessary.   A Hindu died leaving a widow and two daughters H and K. K died leaving a son D who continued living with the widow who subsequently by executing a Patta settled the estate absolutely in favour of D. On this the minor sons of H who was still alive brought a suit, without impleading her that the Patta was not binding on them, it being without any legal necessity. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that the suit at the instance of the sons of H was not maintainable in presence of their mother H who was the next reversioner intervening between the widow and them selves without impleading her as a party to the suit. Nor was the suit, it was further contended maintainable by these remote reversioners until and unless it was proved that the intervening reversioner, their mother H, fraudulently in collusion with the widow concurred with her in transferring the absolute title in the property.   Held, the existence of female heirs, whose right of succession cannot surpass a widow's estate does not affect the status of nearest presumptive reversionary heir to the full ownership of the estate, and such presumptive heir can maintain a suit for declaratory relief, irrespective of the question of collusion or concurrence by such female heir holding a similar estate.   Further, in the case of male reversioner intervening, succession may not be opened to the remote reversioner, but there is only a chance of succession in case of death of the intervening male reversioner. So, there it is necessary to implead him as a party to the suit on the allegation that either he fraudulently colluded with the widow or the life estate holder in the absolute transfer of the property, or for some reasons or other he has deprived him self of his right to challenge that unauthorised transfer or he may be unwilling to take any action.…