Lajwanti vs Safa Chand on 29 January, 1924
6. It has been found that Balkrishna was the last male owner and on his death in 1878-79 his proper heirs were in succession his daughter and in turn her daughter and grand-daughter. But in fact what actually happened was that Gangabai, who was never the widow, but had been the sister-in-law of Balkrishna, the last male owner of the property, proceeded to deal with it as his widow's estate which had vested in her, and her daughter-in-law Narmadabai in turn acted in a similar manner, though actually all that the two women were entitled to, out of the family property, was maintenance; and although half the share in the Khoti village in question was mortgaged to one Dhavale during the whole of this period. Both Courts below found that the two widows' possession was in 1929 terms adverse to those of the heirs of Balkrishna. Finally, in 1911, the defendants acquired the equity of redemption in the property from Parvatibai, the great-grand-daughter of Balkri-Mahadhv 8hna, and also obtained a sale from Narmadabai the second Murphy J, widow; and their title is based on these two documents. The view of the Courts below has been that the sale-deed by Narmadabai was not for family necessity, and that the real amount paid was Rs. 1,550 for the purpose of paying off Dhavale's mortgage. They have also held that Gangabai's and Narmadabai's possession was adverse to that of the real heir of Balkrishna, the heirship having culminated in Parvatibai; but on the strength of the Privy Council ruling in Lajwanti v. Safa Chand (1924) 26 Bom. L.R. 403 the acquisition by these widows of an estate by prescription would cause it to revert to their deceased husbands' estate; and since the alienation by Narmadabai has been shown to be for no legal necessity the reversioners would be entitled to this property on Narmadabai's death. Narmadabai died in 1917; but since during her lifetime the defendants had an interest entitling them to redeem and did redeem the mortgage, I think, the plaintiffs must pay the costs of the redemption before they can be entitled to possession of the Khotki as reversioners. For these reasons it seems to me that the judgments recorded by both Courts below are correct and that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.