P.N. Mookerjee, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a concurrent decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, which was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the disputed property and confirmation ofpossession; or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession, on declaration that defendant No. 1 had acquired no title to the same by his purchase from the previous limited owner, as the said sale was not for any legal necessity or justifying cause.
2. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are as follows :
The suit property belonged to one Tulsi, whodied on July 22, 1936, leaving his widow Kalitara. Tulsi had a sister Charusila. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the respondents before me, claim to be purchasers from Kalitara for legal necessity.
3. The plaintiff claims to be a purchaser from Charusila's heirs who, according to the plaintiff, were Tulsi's reversioners. In other words, the plaintiff claims to challenge the purchase of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from Kalitara on the footing that he was in the same position as their vendors, who were reversioners to Kalitara's husband and, as such, were entitled to challenge the said transaction.
4. There were certain previous litigations between the parties but, for my present purpose, it is not necessary to refer to the same, as, obviously, they have no bearing on the present dispute. The dispute in the present case depends solely on consideration of the question whether defendants Nos. 1's and 2's purchase from Kalitara was justified by legal necessity.
5. The legal necessity, alleged and accepted by the Courts below was for Kalitara's maintenance. On the evidence before the Court, particularly of D. W. 1, which has been accepted by the two Courts below and which cannot be disputed on the materials before me, it is clear that Kalitara, at the time of the disputed sale, had no means to maintain herself and she was living on what may be called the charity of her relation, the said D. W. 1. She had only the property left by her husband and that is the disputed property. In this state of things, it is difficult to hold that the Courts below, in holding in favour of the defendants on the question of legal necessity, have committed any error of law or have made any perverse finding on facts. I am, accordingly, bound to accept their decision on the said question of fact, namely, legal necessity, with only this elaboration that, when a Hindu widow is found without means of maintaining herself, however much she might be maintained by her kind or goodly relations out of charity, she has, in law, a legal necessity to sell her husband's property for the purpose of providing her maintenance. The mere fact that she has, at the moment, charities available to her, either from her relations or from outsiders, for such purpose, would not affect the position and would not affect the question of legal necessity on her part.
6. In the above view, I dismiss this appeal with costs.