Judgment

An heir under the Hindu law is legally bound to provide, out of the estate which descends to him,
maintenance for those persons whom the late proprietor was legally or morally bound to maintain.
The reason is that the estate is inherited subject to the obligation to provide for such maintenance.

This appeal is by the defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiff Brajabashi Biswas and another for
declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of the suit land on the ground that Rajeswari, a
life estate holder, transferred the property to the defendant Matilal Sarcar without any legal
necessity and the sale is not binding on the reversioners the plaintiffs, after the death of Rajeswari.

Admittedly, the suit land belonged to one Budharam exclusively by partition with his co-sharers.
Budharam died leaving a widow Rajeswari Dasya, two widowed daughters (sonless), namely,
Phulamala Dasya and Kalabati Dasya, and the plaintiff, his sister’s son. Rajeswari inherited a life
estate only in the properly in suit. She sold the land of item no. 1 of the schedule to the plaint to
defendants nos. 5-8 and items nos. 2-13 of the plaint schedule to defendant no. 1 on the
15 Falgoon 1360 B.S. corresponding to 27.02.54. The plaintiff’s case is that the sale of item no. 1
properly to defendants nos. 5-8 was without any legal necessities, that Rajeswari brought
defendants nos. 1 to 3 in her house and began to maintain them, that in collusion with the
defendants she sold the land mentioned in items 2-13 of the plaint schedule to defendant no.1, that
this sale also was without legal necessities and collusive and without any consideration, that
Rajeswari died on 20.10.54, that the plaintiffs being the sister’s sons of Budharam, are the
reversionary heirs of Budharam and they ask the defendant to give up possession of the land in suit
on 21.10.54, but the defendants in collusion with each other did not give up possession of the land in
the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, and dispossessed them from the same.

Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they have got right, title and interest in the
suit land and the defendants have got no right to dispossessed the plaintiffs from the land in suit
and that the defendants are merely trespassers in the land in suit.

The plaintiff also allege that Budharam was a well-to-do man, that he had no debt that he left
movable property also, that the usufructs of the property left by Budharam was sufficient for the
maintenance of Rajeswari, that there was no legal necessity for selling the land in suit to defendant
no. 1 as well as to defendant no. 5.

The suit was contested by defendant no. 1 denying the material allegations made in the plaint and
he asserted that Budharam’s two daughters, defendants nos. 3 and 4, who became widows after
some time were compelled to take shelter in their father’s house, as their husbands had no property.
That Budharam had some debts and Rajeswari also incurred debts for the maintenance of herself
and her widowed daughters and for repaying the debts of Budharam and for the sraddha of
Budharam, as the usufruct of the property left by Budharam was not sufficient for her maintenance,
that Rajeswari had to maintain herself and her daughters by borrowing money from defendant no.1
and from others and from usufruct mortgage, that as Rajeswari found no means of maintenance as
most of her lands were in mortgage, and for paying off the debts, she offered to sell the land of item
no.1 was for legal necessities and for valuable consideration and defendant no. 1 has acquired right,
title and interest in the land in suit by purchase. The defendant also denied that the plaintiffs are the
sisters sons of Budharam of or are the next reversionary to be competent to maintain the suit.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale to defendant no. 1 by Rajeswari was for legal
necessities, for paying of debts incurred by Rajeswari, for the maintenance of herself, her widowed
daughters and her grand daughters, who are entitled to get maintenance under the Hindu law and for
the sraddha of her husband Budharam. The trial court also found that the solehnama field by
defendants nos. 5-8 was collusive and fraudulent and as such refused to record the comprise.
 Judgment

On appeal, the learned additional district judge decreed the suit so far it related to the properties nos.
2-13 sold to defendant no. 1, holding that the evidence of legal necessity adduced by the defendant
was contradictory and as such, not satisfactory to prove the legal necessity and affirmed the
judgment and decree of the trial court in respect of properly no. 1 sold to defendants nos. 5-8. He
also found that the evidence adduced by the defendants to prove that the widowed daughters of
Budharam were really destitute to be entitled to get maintenance from the property life by Budharam
also not satisfactory.

It is necessary to ascertain whether the widowed daughters of the deceased are entitled to get
maintenance from the properties of their father. The evidence of defendant no. 1 is that Phulamala
became a widow during the life time of Budharam and came with her little daughters to stay with
him. The evidence of defendant no. 3 is that Sanatan, the husband of Phulamala, died before the
death of his father. There is no evidence that Sanatan had any property of his own and as such,
Phulamala is not legally entitled to get maintenance from her father-in-law’s property, if any. It is a
moral obligation for her father-in-law to maintain her. Further there may be circumstances in which it
is not possible for a Hindu widow to stay at her father in laws house after the death of her husband.
If there are such circumstances, certainly she can be treated as destitute to be maintained by her
father’s property under the Hindu law. Apart from this consideration the fact remains that during the
life time of Budharam his daughter Phulamala came with her daughters to stay with her father and,
on his death, they were dependent on the family of Budharam and were entitled to be maintained out
of the property left by the deceased.

Now coming to the other widowed daughter Kalabati, the evidence of defendant no. 1 is that she
was married after the death of Budharam and soon after she became a widow and came to stay with
her mother Rajeswari and the expenses of this marriage had been met by Rajeswari out of the
income of the property of Budharam as well as by borrowing. Even if it is accepted that Kalabati
became a widow after the death of Budharam the evidence of defense side is that her husband left
no property to maintain her. On the other hand the plaintiffs could not prove that she had sufficient
means to be maintained out of the property of her husband. In this view of the matter, she was also
entitled to get maintenance from her father’s property when she came to stay as destitute daughter
of the deceased Budharam.

The opinion expressed by the Calcutta High Court is that she does acquire such a right, provided she
is unable to obtain maintenance from the husband’s family. In view of the fact that Kalabati’s
husband left no means for her maintenance and in the absence of any evidence that there are
means or properties out of which Kalabati could be maintained, she is entitled to be maintained out
of the property of her father in the hands of her mother. So if Rajeswari borrowed money for her own
maintenance as well as for the maintenance of the widowed daughters and their daughters, these
expenses come within legal necessity and if she transferred the property on account of this loan, the
transfer is for legal necessity.

In view of this evidence the findings arrived at by the learned additional district judge, that the
widowed daughters come to live with Rajeswari not because they were destitute but because the
mother wanted them to live with her in absolutely without any foundation and are liable to be set
aside. Further, if the widowed daughters are destitute, their daughters also came within the meaning
of destitute relations to be maintained out of the income of the property left by Budharam, and, if
Rajeswari borrowed money and incurred loans for the maintenance of herself and her daughters,
they are legal expenses and if, for the loans incurred by her, she transferred the property in
satisfaction of the loan taken from defendant no. 1 it is for the legal necessity.

The result, therefore, is that this appeal allowed with costs and the judgment and decree of lower
appellate court are set aside and those of the trial court restored. In view of the decision in the
appeal the connected rule has become infractions and it is discharged without any order as to costs.
Judgment