Legal necessity permits a Hindu widow to sell mortgaged property, and conflicting co-ordinate rulings require larger Bench reference.

A Hindu widow, subject only to the requirement of legal necessity or benefit to the estate, may validly sell property even if it is under a usufructuary mortgage, because she can choose the form of alienation as a prudent owner. The sale was upheld where necessity had been found on the facts, and it bound the reversioners despite the mortgagee's possession and the subsisting right of redemption. The text also states that when co-ordinate Benches of equal strength give conflicting rulings, a later Bench should ordinarily refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than resolve the conflict itself. The sale was therefore treated as valid and binding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Hindu widow can sell property that is subject to a usufructuary mortgage when the sale is supported by legal necessity and the mortgagee has no independent suit for recovery of the mortgage money, and whether such sale binds the reversioners. (ii) What is the proper course when a later Division Bench is faced with conflicting decisions of co-ordinate Benches on the same question of law.

Issue (i): Whether a Hindu widow can sell property that is subject to a usufructuary mortgage when the sale is supported by legal necessity and the mortgagee has no independent suit for recovery of the mortgage money, and whether such sale binds the reversioners.

Analysis: The widow was the owner of the estate and, subject to the limited Hindu law restriction that alienation must be justified by necessity or benefit to the estate, she had discretion to choose the form of alienation. There was no absolute rule forbidding a sale merely because the property was under usufructuary mortgage. If necessity existed, she could act as a prudent owner, and a sale might even be the proper means of relieving the estate and preserving its income. The finding of necessity was one of fact and had been accepted by the courts below. On those facts, the sale was not invalid merely because the mortgagee was in possession and the reversioners retained a right of redemption.

Conclusion: The sale was valid and binding on the reversioners, and the appellant was entitled to redeem.

Issue (ii): What is the proper course when a later Division Bench is faced with conflicting decisions of co-ordinate Benches on the same question of law.

Analysis: A Bench of equal strength should ordinarily follow an earlier co-ordinate Bench decision, and if it doubts that decision, the proper course is to refer the matter to a Full Bench rather than choose between conflicting authorities on its own. Certainty and orderly administration of justice require that conflicting views be authoritatively resolved by a larger Bench.

Conclusion: The appropriate course in case of conflicting co-ordinate Bench rulings is reference to a Full Bench.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's contrary decrees were set aside, and the trial court's decrees in favour of the appellant were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Hindu widow acts upon legal necessity, she may validly sell property even if it is subject to a usufructuary mortgage, and such alienation binds the reversioners; where co-ordinate Bench decisions conflict, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench for authoritative settlement.

---