1. This is a suit by the reversioner of a Hindu to declare a sale made by his widow not binding on him. The Subordinate Judge has found that the sale which is evidenced by Exhibit III, dated 1st January 1908, was made to discharge a mortgage of 1898 evidenced by Exhibit II. Exhibit II itself was executed to discharge a debt of the husband evidenced by Exhibit I, dated 1896. It appears, therefore, that the sale was for the purpose of a debt of the husband together with interest which had accumulated on it. The principal amount was Rs. 200 as shown by Exhibit II. The interest was Rs. 331-10. The Subordinate Judge has held that the sale was supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 531-11-0 as it arose out of a debt of the husband amounting to Rs. 200. He considered it unnecessary to go into the question whether the widow could have paid the accumulated interest out of the income that she was getting from the property since the execution of Exhibit II. According to the decided cases, a widow is not bound to discharge her husband's debt out of the income of his estate which she is entitled to spend according to her on discretion Ramasami Chetty v. Mangaikarasu Nachiar 18 M.K 113. So far, therefore, as the principal amount is concerned, it must be held that she was entitled to discharge it by a mortgage or sale of her husband's estate without making any effort to expand her own income for the purpose. But was she entitled to allow the debt to accumulate and to make the interest a burden on the estate so as to bind the reversioners? A widow's right is to the enjoyment of the real income of her husband's property, that is, to enjoy the income subject to all proper outgoings. She is bound to keep down the interest on her husband's debts and is only entitled to enjoy the real net income of her husband's properties. It cannot, therefore, be held that she had an absolute right to discharge the whole of the debt due on Exhibit II, including the interest, by means of a sale of a portion of her husband's estate. A purchaser, however, will not necessarily be affected by the fact that the widow could have discharged the interest by means of her own income. If there was actual pressure on the estate at the time of the sale and the widow had then no funds available for the discharge of the debt or if the creditor after reasonable inquiry bona fide believed that the sale was necessary in the circumstanced that then existed, he must be protected and his sale must be upheld. See Ravaneshwar Prasad Singh v. Chandi Prasad Singh 38 C.P 72l; 12 Ind. Cas. 931; Roy Radha Kishen v. Nauratan Lal 6 C.L.J. 490; Dharam Chand Lal v. Bhawani Misrain 25 C. 189; 24 I.A. 183; 1 C.W.N. 697 and Bhima Reddy v. Bhaskar 6 Bom. L.R. 628. But the Subordinate Judge has not recorded a finding on the questions indicated in the observations just made. The District Munsif found that the income from the property in the widow's possession was considerable. It was, therefore, necessary for the Subordinate Judge to deal with the question of necessity for the sale or of the 2nd defendant's bona fide belief in the existence of such necessity. We shall, therefore, request the Subordinate Court to return a finding on the questions mentioned above. Both parties may adduce fresh evidence in the case. The finding should be returned within two months from the date of the receipt of this order in the Court below and seven days thereafter will be allowed for filing objections.
2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada submitted the finding and their Lordships then delivered the following.
3. Both Courts have found that the alienee has succeeded in proving necessity for Rs. 511 out of Rs. 600, the consideration for sale, and that the consideration was adequate. In these circumstances, the declaration asked for must be refused. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.