After companyclusion of the first leg of litigation, thereafter on 10th June, 1959, the reversioners of Radhakishan, the respondents before us, filed another suit for possession of the house in dispute on the basis of the decree as aforesaid.
On 13th June, 1955, this suit was decreed by the Trial Court holding that the transfer, by virtue of the said sale made by the widow was without any legal necessity and hence void against the reversioners interest.
During its pendency, on 17th June, 1956 the aforesaid Hindu Succession Act came into force and on 22nd May, 1957 Smt.
Kesri, widow of Radhakrishan was alive and was a party, the respondents, reversioners of Radhakrishan, succeeded in their suit by getting declaration of this disputed house, that the sale deed by Smt.
Earlier, the said reversioners challenged the said sale and sought declaration of the title over the said house, by filing a suit for declaration, challenging the claim of the appellants.
Kesri died, namely, 22nd May 1957, since Hindu Succession Act came into force, Smt.
Kesri, widow of Radhakishan, sold the house in dispute to Smt, Naresh Kumari, the appellant No.
The present issue has arisen when the respondents reversioners filed their second suit for possession over the same property about which they got the decree as aforesaid.
Kesri became full owner of the said property and hence she being trans feree from her and being in possession of this property became full owner.
The second appeal by the plaintiff was allowed by the High Court by setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate companyrt and restoring the decree of the trial companyrt.
Kesri had only a limited interest in the property and thus she had numberright to sell the property without any legal necessity.
The defendants, the appellants before us, have companytested the suit on the ground that on the date Smt.
The appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Kangra Division, thus the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
Naresh Kumari was without legal necessity hence void.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed which became final.
Finally, on 11th June, 1958, the appeal Was also dismissed.
Nirmal Kumari appealed before the first appellate companyrt.
1, on 29th January, 1954 for Rs.
Sakshi Lal and Ashwani Kumari, the respondents, are reversioners of Radhakishan.
Naresh Kumari Ors.
Aggrieved by this, Smt.
One Smt.
Kesri died.
Their case was that Smt.
3,000.
Aggrieved by this order, the present appellants Smt.
Kesri to Smt.
have filed this appeal.
