Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court and arises out of a suit filed by the appellant as a Hindu reversioner to recover possession of properties alienated by a Hindu widow. The property in suit was the self-acquired property of one Ganpatrao-Jairam who died in 1894 leaving behind two widows, Annapurnabai and Sarswatibai. Ganpatrao had executed a will by which property in village Dahisar was given to Annapurnabai and property in village Nagaon was given to Sarswatibai. The will further provided that a dwelling house together with structures and open land situate at Thana would remain with his two wives who would enjoy the same. There were other dispositions in the will with which we are however not concerned now. Annapurnabai was also authorised to make an adoption on the advice of the executors appointed under the will; but the adopted son was to have no right or connection with the movable and immovable property devised to Annapurnabai during her life-time and was to take the property devised to her only after her death. The adopted son was also to take the immovable property bequeathed to Saraswatibai after her death. It may be added that no son was adopted by Annapurnabai and this aspect of the matter therefore need not be considered further. Annapurnabai died on September 17, 1915 and she had executed a will before her death. After Annapurnabai's death, Sarswatibai began to manage the property. It may be added the Saraswatibai had adopted a son, but this was said to be against the provision in the will of her husband which specifically directed that she could only adopt if Annapurnabai died without making an adoption from amongst the family on the advice of the executors. There was therefore litigation in connection with adoption between Sarswatibai and Balkrishna Waman, one of the legatees under the will of Ganpatrao, which ended in favour of Balkrishna Waman. Saraswatibai died in 1943.
(2.) The case of the appellant was that the will of Ganpatrao merely gave widow's estate to Annapurnabai and Sarswatibai. Consequently Annapurnabai could not dispose of the property given to her by will and the bequests made by her were not binding on the appellant, as the next reversioner. It was also alleged that the will made by Annapurnabai was vitiated by the exercise of undue influence brought to bear on her by Balkrishna Waman, who was the husband of her niece. Sarswatibai also made certain alienation's and the appellant contended that the sale by Sarswatibai was due to the undue influence exercised on her by Balkrishna Waman, and in any case there was no legal necessity for transfer and therefore the transfer was not binding on the appellant. The main defendant in the suit was Ganesh, a son of Balkrishna Waman. In addition there were twelve other defendants where alienees in possession of the property and were joined in the suit as the appellant prayed for recovery of possession from them also.
(3.) The suit was resisted by the main defendant Ganesh of two main reasons. It was first contended that the appellant was an undischarged insolvent at the time succession opened in 1943 and therefore whatever property might come to him as a reversioner vested in the official receiver. Therefore, the appellant had no right to bring a suit to recover possession even after his absolute discharge because the property never vested in him. Secondly, it was contended that by his will Ganpatrao had granted an absolute estate to the two widows and therefore Annapurnabai had full right to make a will with respect to the property given to her and Sarswatibai had the right to make alienations if she thought fit. Besides these two main defences, it was also contended that the appellant was not the nearest reversioner and the alienation's made by Sarswatibai were for legal necessity. The same defence was raised by the other defendants. In addition the aliences from Sarswatibai contended that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the defect in their vendor's title and therefore the alienation's made in their favour could not be set aside. They further pleaded that they had made substantial improvements on the properties purchased by them.;