1. Musammat Bhagwan Dei daughter of Hardeva Sahai, instituted a suit for a declaration that a deed of gift, of a house, dated the 10th October 1905, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and a sale-deed, dated 23th June 1907 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favor of defendant No. 3, were null and void so far as they affected the interests of the plaintiff.
2. The defence with which I am concerned, with is that the property in suit being an insignificant part of the estate which the widow got from her husband by succession, the alienation was valid and that the transfer was made for the spiritual benefit of the husband and the widows.
3. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for the declaration that the deed of gift and the deed of sale so far as they were prejudicial to the plaintiff's rights were null and void; the rest of the claim was dismissed. The decree of the first Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. That Court found that the gift was for the benefit of the widow's soul arid not for the benefit of the soul of the husband. The defendant, Uman Dat, has preferred a second appeal to this Court. Two points are argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant.
4. The first is that the daughter is not entitled to sue, she not being a next reversioner. In Ishwar Narain v. Janki 15 A. 132 a daughter is described as the next reversioner. I am bound by that ruling whatever my own view on the point may be. As the next reversioner the daughter is entitled to sue. See Ram Anand Kunwar v. The Court of Wards 6 C. 764 at p. 772. I am, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The second plea taken by the learned Vakil for the appellant is that the gift being of a small portion of the property inherited from her husband and being for the spiritual welfare of her soul is valid. In the case of Puran Rai v. Jai Narain 4 A. 482, the learned Judges who decided that case remarked: 'The point is now covered by authority that acts of alienation calculated to be religious benefit and efficacy to the widows, or to any person other than the deceased owner, will not justify an alienation of any part of the property in the hands of the widow.' That ruling is binding on me and I hold that the fact that the property gifted by the widow formed a very small portion of the estate does not entitle her to alienate it for the benefit of her own soul.
5. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.