Ryves and Daniels, JJ.
1. This case has been referred to a Bench because the precise point has not been previously decided. The question is whether the reversioner has a right to challenge an alienation made by the father as manager of a joint Hindu family which the son, who had a right to challenge it, did not challenge during the father's life-time. The facta are these. Mahabir Pande and his minor son, Bansgopal, constituted a joint Hindu family. Mahabir Pande, on the 2nd of February, 1917, made a gift of the suit property to his wife Musammat Ramraji. The deed of gift purported to constitute her full owner of the property. Mahabir died shortly after making the gift. Bansgopal died in November, 1917. On the 3rd of May, 1920, Musammat Ramraji executed a deed of conditional sale in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 316. The plaintiff, who is the next reversioner, sues, on the assumption that Musammat Ramraji held only the estate of a Hindu widow or a Hindu mother, for a declaration that the deed of conditional sale is not binding on him after Musammat Ramraji's death.
2. The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the deed of gift. If Musammat Ramraji had a good title under the deed of gift, she was entitled to deal with the property as she liked. If the plaintiffs can claim the same right as Bansgopal had to challenge the gift, then the defendant will have to justify it on the ground of legal necessity. It has been found by the court below that there was legal necessity to the extent of Rs. 259 out of Rs. 316, but both the courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs, are not entitled to challenge the deed. With this finding we agree. No authority for the right claimed by the plaintiff has been shown to us either in the Hindu texts or in the decided cases. There is ample authority for the view that an alienation by the manager of a joint Hindu family without necessity is not absolutely void. It is voidable at the instance of the persons whose interests are affected by it, namely, the co-parceners in the property. This has been held in two recent Madras cases Subba Goundan v. Krishnamachari (1921) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 449 and Sinkara Variar v. Ummer (1922) I.L.R. 46 Mad. 40. The point was of importance, as on it depended Whether the persons ' setting aside the alienation were entitled to mesne profits from the date of the alienation, or only from the date of repudiation. There is authority of this Court to the same effect in Sheo Ghulam v. Badri Narain Lal (1913) 11 A.L.J. 798.
3. The interests of the plaintiffs were in no way affected, by the deed of gift when it took place. They had no right in the property whatever during the life-time of either Mahabir or his son. It would be giving a great and unwarranted extension to the rights of reversioners as hitherto understood to allow them the right to challenge an alienation under the circumstances found in the present case. In our opinion the decision of the courts below is correct, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.