JUDGMENT
Devadoss, J.
1. The only point in this Second Appeal is whether the alienation under Ex. III is one which would bind the reversioners. Suppammal sold under Ex. III some lands for Rs. 150 and the amount was spent for the marriage of the plaintiff’s father who was the nearest, reversioner at that time. He was Suppammal’s husband’s father’s brother’s son Ex. III was attested by the plaintiff’s father. Suppammal died in 1904 and the present suit was brought on 3-9-1918.
2. The contention of Mr. Vinayaka Rao is that the widow was not justified in spending for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff’s father. As observed by the learned District Judge we are not in possession of all the facts and all the circumstances which induced the widow to defray the expenses of the marriage of the plaintiff’s father. If all the facts were before the Court it would no doubt be in a position to say whether the plaintiff’s father was a member of the widow’s household or not and whether she was bound to see that he was married. In, the absence of such evidence it would not be proper to hold that the widow was not justified in selling her husband’s property for the marriage expenses of the nearest reversioner. Ex. III has been attested by the plaintiff’s father. That being so I think it is for the plaintiff to make out either the plaintiff’s father was not living with the widow or that the widow went out of her way in order to defray the expenses of the plaintiff’s father’s marriage.
3. It is significant that the alienation was not challenged at all till 1908 and the answer to that is that the plaintiff was a minor but the plaintiff’s father himself could have challenged the alienation if he thought that the alienation was not a proper one. It would not be right at this distance of time to allow the plaintiff to rely upon the bare fact that the plaintiff’s father was only a reversioner and the widow met the expenses without proof of all the circumstances which existed at the time. The plaintiff himself is the issue of that marriage and it is rather startling that he should be allowed to put forward the contention that his father should not have married at the time he did or that the widow should not have met the expenses of his father’s marriage. Mr. Vinayaka Rao relies upon Narainbati v. Ramdhari Singh [1916] 20 C.W.N. 734. The facts of this case are quite different from the facts of that. Here, as I said above, we are not in possession of all the facts of the case and the circumstances connected with the plaintiff’s marriage. Both the Courts have found that the alienation was under such circumstances as would bind the reversioners. In this connexion reference may be made to Vinayak v. Govind [1901] 25 Bom. 129 in which Sir Lawrence Jenkins held that an alienation for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff’s father who was only a bandhu was binding upon the reversioners.
4. Taking all these circumstances into consideration I am not prepared to differ from the finding of the Courts below that the alienation was for a purpose which would bind the reversioner.
5. This Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
