1. The party who alleges that an alienation by a stani is valid beyond the life-time of the grantor, that is, that it is binding on his successor, ought to prove that the alienation was for the benefit of the estate or (to put it in a different way) was such as would be binding on the other members of a Joint Hindu family if made by a manager of the family (who was not also the father of the other members).
2. The defendant in this case did not take any steps to discharge the burden of proof and the disputed alienation was a lease for 72 years by an old gentleman almost' on his deathbed in favour of a near relative. We therefore hold that the lower court rightly decided that the alienation was not binding on the successor of the grantor. The Letters Patent-appeal must be dismissed with costs.