1. In this case a mortgage was executed by one Rangammal, who was the aunt of Perumal. It is found that she had no authority to execute the mortgage, that it was not for a necessary purpose, and that it was a collusive transaction. Subsequently, Perumal's widow was sued on this mortgage and in the course of the suit she re married as she was entitled to do by the custom of the caste. After her re marriage she was a party to a consent decree which was also found to have been collusive. The plaintiff in this suit is the purchaser of the mortgaged property in the sale under the consent decree. It has been held in a recent Fall Bench case Vitta Tayaramma v. Onatakondu Sitayya 48 Ind. Cas. 50 that under the Hindu Law, a widow forfeits her status as a widow by re-marriage and that she forfeits the property which thereupon vests in the next reversioner, A widow represents her husband's estate so long as it is vested in her; but when she has divested herself of it she, in our opinion, ceases to represent the estate and, there fore, she was incompetent to enter into this consent decree.
2. As regards the claim for Rs. 300 the finding of the Court of first instance, from which the District Judge does not dissent, is that Rangammal's mortgage was in part consideration of the debt of Rs. 300 due by Perumal, We must take it that, even so, it is not shown that it was for a necessary purpose and it is found to be collusive. The real object of the mortgage was to charge the minor's property for a debt of her own. In these circumstances, we do not think that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief on this account.
3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs. The costs of the finding proceedings in the lower Court will be borne by the respondents.