Reversionary heir not estopped from challenging deed deemed gift, not for consideration. Appeal allowed.

The High Court held that the plaintiff, a reversionary heir, was not estopped from challenging the deed executed by Marakammal in favor of Ramasami Gounden. The deed was deemed a gift, not for consideration, and did not constitute a valid alienation for necessity. The plaintiff's actions did not amount to ratification, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the District Judge's decree in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the deed executed by Marakammal.
2. Estoppel or ratification by the plaintiff.
3. Power of a Hindu widow over her deceased husband's estate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the deed executed by Marakammal:
The plaintiff, as a reversionary heir, contested the validity of the deed executed by Marakammal in favor of Ramasami Gounden. The deed was claimed to be a conveyance of parts of the estate, including the disputed part of the Konganapuram mitta. The grounds for resistance were that the deed was valid and carried the property in question, and alternatively, that the plaintiff had either ratified the deed or was estopped from denying its validity. The High Court judges differed in opinion, with Miller J. agreeing with the District Judge that the deed was invalid, while Sadasiva Aiyar J. considered it valid, asserting that "a partial alienation by a widow to the nearest reversioner is valid in law when he is a male, and gives him full ownership right in the alienated property." The Full Bench eventually held that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the deed's validity due to the mortgage transaction.

2. Estoppel or ratification by the plaintiff:
The concept of estoppel was analyzed under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a person cannot deny the truth of a thing if they have intentionally caused another to believe it and act on that belief. The learned judges of the Appeal Court rested their opinion on Bajranji Singh's Case, but the Board found no room for estoppel, as the plaintiff never consented to the deed, nor was his claim traced through Ramasami. The alternative view of ratification was also considered, where it was noted that an alienation by a widow is voidable, not void, and a reversioner must act to challenge it when the right of action is open and known. The plaintiff had raised proceedings immediately after his title was confirmed, and his actions did not amount to an election to hold the deed good.

3. Power of a Hindu widow over her deceased husband's estate:
The judgment delved into the power of a Hindu widow over her deceased husband's estate, distinguishing between the power of surrender or renunciation and the power of alienation for specific purposes. It was established that a widow could renounce in favor of the nearest reversioner, effectively accelerating the estate of the heir by conveying absolutely and destroying her life estate. However, a partial surrender was not valid, as the principle required the effacement of the widow, which could not be partial. The power of alienation for religious or charitable purposes, or necessity, was also discussed, with the necessity requiring proof beyond mere recital in the deed. The consent of reversionary heirs could fortify an alienation, but only as presumptive proof of its legitimacy, not as an independent validating force.

Conclusion:
The Board concluded that the deed executed by Marakammal was not a total conveyance of her property and was a deed of gift, not for consideration. Therefore, it could not stand as evidence of alienation for value for purposes of necessity. The plaintiff was not estopped from challenging the deed, and his actions did not constitute ratification. The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the District Judge was restored, with costs awarded to the appellant.

---