1. This case has been referred to a Bench because the precise point has not been previously decided, he 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 it during the father's lifetime. The facts are these. Mahabir Pande and his minor son, Bansgopal, constituted a joint Hindu family. Mahabir Pande, on 2nd 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 3rd May 1920 Musammat Ramraji executed a deed of conditional sale in favour of the defendant for 0 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, 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 claim the same right as Bansgopal has challenge the gift, then the defend have to justify it on the ground, at necessity. It has been found by the court below that there was legal to the extent of Rs. 259 out of January 16, but both the Courts below I missed 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 plaintiffs 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 Subbe Goundan v. Krishnamachari 68 Ind. Cas. 869 : 45 M. 449 : 30 M.L.T. 217 : 42 M.L.J. 372 : 15 L.W. 537 : (1922) M.W.N. 269 : (1922) A.I.R. (M.) 112 and Ramaswami Aiyar v.Subramania Aiyar 74 Ind. Cas. 804 : 46 M. 47 : 16 L.W. 297 : 43 M.L.J. 406 : (1923) A.I.R. (M.) 147. The point was of importance, as on it depended whether the persons setting a side 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 Narayan Lal 19 Ind. Cas. 560 : 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 lifetime 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.