1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a grandson to set aside a Bile deed executed by his deceased mother who held the property as the only daughter. The only question before the Courts below was whether there was legal necessity and justification for the sale deed. Both the Courts have found that this was so and accordingly dismissed it. On the findings of the lower appellate Court the plaintiff's mother executed the sale-deed in order to pay off a debt which had been raised on the property by her own father, who was the last male owner of the estate, and to pay off certain debts previously raised by her for the purpose of maintaining and supporting the present plaintiff himself and for the purchase of seeds etc, for needs which have been found to constitute legal necessity. In my opinion the findings of the lower appellate Court really dispose of the appeal completely.
2. It is, however, urged of behalf of the appellant that the findings are insufficient inasmuch as there is no finding that there was pressing necessity. It is urged that the previous debts were debts on mortgages with possession and there is no finding that the mortgagee was demanding payment or that there was any urgency about their discharge.
3. Reliance has been placed on the case of Bandhu Ram v. Ram Kishun Sonar A.I.R. 1923 All. 535. It is to be noted that in that case it was the father (who did not represent the whole estate for The time being) who had executed certain sale-deeds in lieu of a consideration, the bulk of which formed a mortgage debt which was not to fall due till long after the sale deed. The payment was thus premature. On the other hand in the present case it was The Hindu daughter, who represented the entire estate for the time being, who thought it necessary to discharge those old debts which were due. The payments were in no sense premature. It seems to me that a female owner as she represents the whole estate for the time being is bound to manage it to the best of her ability. She must therefore be allowed reasonable latitude in the exercise of her powers provided she does not act unfairly towards the revorsioners. So long as there are, outstanding debts which are a charge on the estate and which bind the estate and which cannot be got rid of by the reversioners without payment, it is her discretion to decide whether she should pay them off or not. I do not think that it is further incumbent on the transferee to establish that some dire consequences would have ensued if those debts had not been discharged.
4. I accordingly dismiss this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11.