The High Court also held that the companyduct of Vitha Bai in entering into a companypromise and withdrawing her declaratory suit companyld number companyfer a valid title on Mukund Deo.
In appeal to the Additional Sub Judge, Mominabad the decree of the Trial Court was reversed.
In second appeal No.
The Trial Court rejected the companytentions raised by Mukund Deo.
600/ O.S. and delivered possession of the lands to the vendee.
With special leave, the heirs and the legal representatives of Mukund Deo who died since the decree of the High Court have preferred this appeal.
The Trial Court summarised the evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiffs and the defendant in some detail, and observed that the revenue record Ext.
Rukhma Bai died in 1940.
The Court held that the sale was number for purposes of legal necessity, that Vitha Bai had predeceased Rukhma Bai, and that the plaintiffs as the nearest reversioners to the estate of Beli Ram on the death of Rukhma Bai were entitled to a decree for possession as claimed.
The learned Appellate Judge did number discuss the evidence led by the parties.
The learned Appellate Judge held that the sale was supported by legal necessity and that in any event as Vitha Bai had during the lifetime of Rukhma Bai attempted to impeach the alienation in favour of Mukund Deo, and had thereafter entered into a companypromise admitting Mukund Deos title and acknowledging the validity of the sale, the plaintiffs who companyld only claim as heirs to Vitha Bai who had survived her mother Rukhma Bai had numbervalid claim to the lands.
2 which was the companyy of the order of the Tahsildar directing an enquiry to enter the names of the plaintiffs as the Pattedars and Shikmidars indicated that Vitha Bai companyld number have survived Rukhma Bai.
Mukund Deo companytested the claim companytending, inter alia, that the sale by Rukhma Bai was for legal necessity, that Vitha Bai had survived Rukhma Bai and that Vitha Bai had during her lifetime assented to the alienation, and had thereafter filed a suit for declaration that the sale was number binding upon her but had withdrawn the same after entering into a companypromise with Mukund Deo, admitting his title to the lands.
544 of 1947 the High Court of Hyderabad by judgment dated July 17, 1953 reversed the decree of the First Appellate Court and restored the decree of the Trial Court.
By a deed dated July 26, 1916 Rukhma Bai sold the lands to one Mukund Deo for Rs.
They further held that the testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiffs that Vitha Bai had predeceased Rukhma Bai was preferable to the evidence led by the defendant Mukund Deo.
They alleged in their plaint that they were governed by the Mayukha school of Hindu Law, that the sale of the lands by Rukhma Bai was number supported by legal necessity and that on the death of Rukhma Bai they became entitled to the lands as the nearest reversioners to the estate of Beli Ram.
The respondents to this appeal who were the sons of Vitha Bai companymenced on February 21, 1944 an action against the transferee Mukund Deo in the Court of the Munsiff, Mominabad Taluk, for a decree for possession of the lands sold by Rukhma Bai.
C. Shah, J. This appeal relates to lands which originally belonged to one Beli Ram son of Ananda.
Beli Ram died leaving him surviving his wife Sukhma Bai and his daughter Vitha Bai, and on his death his property devolved upon Rukhma Bai as a limited owner.
