Agarwala. J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The facts briefly stated are as follows : One Manna Singh Was the owner of the property in dispute. He died in 1921 leaving three daughters. Changura, Dhanauta and Chaura. There was one Tribeni Shingh. a collateral of Manna Singh. He objected to the mutation of the names of the three daughters in place of Manna Singh, but his objection was overruled and the names of the three daughters were mutated on the property left by Manna Singh. In the year 1922 Tribeni Singh sued the daughters in the civil court for possession on the ground that they were not the daughters of Manna Singh. This suit was dismissed and an appeal was also dismissed in 1924. On 8th of August, 1925. Chaura and Dhanauta, along with Bhagwan Singh, husband of Dhanauta, and Bikram Singh and Jant Singh, sons of Dhanauta and Kumar Singh, husband's brother of Chaura, her husband having died previously and her son Ram Chandra being a minor at that time, executed a simple mortgage in favour of Nandan Singh and ten others, members of joint Hindu family for a sum of Rs. 3500. The property mortgaged was a two -third share in the property of Manna Singh. In the sale -deed it was provided that if, in any case, the mortgagee could not realise his money by sale of the property mortgaged he was entitled to sell property mentioned in list B which was the property of the husbands of Dhanauta and Chaura. On the 27 of August, 1925, all the three daughters, Changura, Dahnauta and Chaura, joined in executing a the mama in respect of the entire property in favour of one Badri Singh, a relation of the mortgagee Nandan Singh. On the 8th of June. 1927, Changura, one of the daughters, and her son Jhilatu, the present appellant, executed a sale deed of one -third share of the property in favour of Tribeni Singh and his brothers Chaura and Dhanauta filed a suit for pre -emption in respect of this sale -deed This suit was decreed on the 4th November, 1928. They deposited the pre -emption money and entered into possession over the property. In order to raise the money required for payment of the decree in the pre -emption . suit Dhanauta and Chaura had executed a Sorbhat in favour of Jadunath, a son of Nandan Singh, who filed a suit in 1934 of recovery of the amount due to him as against Dhanauta and Chaura. On the 8th of December, 1934, a consent decree was passed against Dhanauta and Chaura and in execution of this decree the entire property left by Manna Singh which at that time was in possession of Dhanauta and Chaura (one -third share of Changura having been obtained in the per -emption decree) was transferred to Jadunath. Jadunath Singh thus came into possession of the entire property. Chaura died in 1939 leaving her son Bam Chandra; died in 1940 leaving Jhilatu Singh, the present appellant; and Dhanauta died in 1942 leaving two sons, Bikaram Singh and Jeut Singh. After the death of the three daughters a suit was filed by Jhilatu Singh, Bikaram Singh and Jeut Singh on the 9th of January, 1943, as against Jadunath and some subsequent transferees impleading Earn Chandra son of Chaura, as a pro -forma defendant. The relief claimed in the suit was that possession be decreed in favour of the three plaintiffs along with Earn Chandra proforma defendant. The allegations in the plaint were that the transfers made by the daughters were not binding on the plaintiffs and that after the death of the daughters the plaintiffs and Earn Chandar inherited the entire property as reversioners of Manna Singh.
(2.) THE defence to the suit, inter alia, was that the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the various transfer made by the widows along with the plaintiffs and that, in any case, the suit. was bared under Section 43 of the Transfer of property Act. During the pendency of the suit Bikaram Singh and Jeut Singh, sons of Dhanauta, with drew from the suit having compromised the case with the defendants and Ram Chandra pre -forma defendant stated that he claimed no interest in the property. The fight was, therefore, confined between Jhilatu Singh on the one side and Jadunath Singh and his transferees on the other. The trial court rejected the defence and decreed the suit. On appeal the lower appellate court held that the suit was barred by the principle of estoppel as also by Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. In this second appeal it has been urged on behalf of Jhilatu Singh that the suit was neither barred by estoppel nor by Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The first question urged is that the sale -deed by Changura and Jhilatu of one -third share in the property made on the 8th June, 1927, in favour of Tribeni Singh and his brothers was not binding on Jhilatu Singh.
(3.) IN the sale -deed of the 8th of June, 1927, it was stated that Changura had obtained the property sold by inheritance from her father Manna Singh and that thereafter both Changura and Jhilatu Singh had been in proprietary possession of the same. The property transferred was the absolute interest in the same and not merely the widow's interest of Changura.;