1. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 to 5, who did not join in the suit, are the nearest male reversioners of the deceased owner of the land in dispute. The 1st defendant is a widow, and the 2nd defendant is a daughter, by another wife, of the deceased. The District Judge has held that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit to set aside alienations by the widow because the 2nd defendant is entitled to succeed after the widow's death, in preference to the plaintiff and there was no collusion between the 1st and 2nd defendants. He relies on the decision in Rani Anand Kunwar v. The Court of Wards on behalf of Chandra Shekar a minor 6 C.k 764 but in that case the plaintiff was not the nearest male reversioner. The principle of that case has no application where the nearer heir is a female and as such is entitled only to a limited estate.
2. This is distinctly laid down in the decision of this Court in Raghupati v. Tirumalai 15 M.j 422 and also in Abinash Chandra Mazumdar v. Harinath Shaha 32 B.k 62, see also Mayne's Hindu Law, para. 646, 7th Edition. The respondent's of Vakil endeavours to support the District Judge's decision by reference to the case of Chiruvolu Punnamma v. Chiruvolu Venkatappiah 21 M.L.T. 183 but we do not think it has any application to the fact of this case.
3. The District Judge has not gone into the merits. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal to him for disposal according to law.
4. Costs will abide the result.