1. The District Judge has decided the case on one point only holding that the debt, to satisfy which the sale was ostensibly executed, was barred by limitation. He decided that the transfer was not made for purposes which by the Hindu law would justify it. We agree with him that the debt was barred by limitation, but it does not follow that it was not a debt which the debtor's widow might properly satisfy by the alienation of her husband's estate vide Kondappa v. Subba 13 M.k 189. If the sale was a bona fide satisfaction of a debt due by the vendor's husband and was otherwise such that, had the debt not been barred, it could be upheld under the Hindu law as a sale for proper purposes, the mere fact that the debt is irrecoverable in consequence of the law of limitation, will not of itself make the sale voidable by the reversioners.
2. We must, in these circumstances, ask the District Judge for a finding on the second issue on the evidence on record in the light of the above remarks.
3. We are informed that no question any longer arises for decision on the first and third issues.
4. The finding should be returned within four weeks after the re-opening of the District Court. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections thereafter.