Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court below. She sued to set aside an alienation made by her step-mother in the year 1888. The appellant's mother predeceased her father but his second wife, Subhadrayya, lived until 1926. The appellant had two sisters, Bangarayya and Rajayamma both of whom have been dead for several years. The appellant sought to set aside the transaction on the ground that there was no necessity for the sale of the property; but the learned Subordinate Judge found against her.
2. After forty years have elapsed evidence of the circumstances which existed at the time of the alienation would in most cases be very scanty, and in this case there is no evidence at all. It is known, however, that there had been litigation in which Subhadrayya was engaged, and it is also known from the conveyance that the property was sold in order to discharge debts. It is contended that the recitals in the deed are not sufficient. Recitals, however, can be taken into consideration in a case like this. It is open to the Court to make presumptions to fill in details which have been obliterated by time, as was pointed out by this Court in a case which went to the Privy Council Chintamanibhatla Vehkata Reddi Pantulu v. Rani Saheba of Wadhwan (1919) 38 M.L.J. 393 : L.R. 47 IndAp 6 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 541 (P.C.). Their Lordships expressly approved of this statement of the law. The learned Trial Judge has carefully considered the materials before him on the record and has come to the conclusion that that is sufficient to justify him in holding the alienation to be valid. We see no reason to discharge this finding, and the appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs, one set.