1. It appears to me that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is right upon the point raised.
2. I would hold the defendants to be concluded, not upon the ground that they are bound by the act or consent of the father, through whom, they say, they do not claim, but upon this ground, that the act of the widow, sanctioned by the concurrence of the then next heir and reversioner, was in itself a valid ground.
3. This, so far as I know, is the rule usually acted upon by the Courts in Bengal, and although in the case of Gunga Pershad Kur v. Shumbhoo Nath Burmun (22 W.R., 393) reference is made to some conflict of opinion upon the subject, I am not aware there is such authority opposed to the view which I take as to oblige us to refer this question to a decision of a Full Bench.
4. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.