Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She is the daughter of the 4th defendant. Her father was one Narayana Pillai a Makavazhi Vellala. The 3rd defendant was the first wife and the 4th defendant, the second wife of Narayana Pillai. Defendants 3 and 4 were co-widows and the 3rd defendant was the elder one. The plaint property was the self-acquisition of Narayana Pillai. On 17-11-1101, the 4th defendant on her behalf and as guardian of the plaintiff, who was minor then, had executed Ext.II sale deed for the plaint property for a total consideration of 20,825 fanams in favour of defendants 1 and 2. It contains four recitals. The first two recitals were for redemption of admitted mortgages and the third redemption of a hypothecation debt of fanams 4,200/- due to one Subramonia Pillai, examined in this case as D.W. 1. The fourth recital Was a cash consideration of 250 5/8 fanams. It is the plaintiff's case that the 4th defendant was incompetent to execute the sale deed and that it was lacking in consideration and necessity so far as the third and fourth recitals were concerned. The suit was, therefore, for setting aside the sale deed. 2. The 1st defendant contended that at the time of Narayana Pillai's death he was in embarrassed circumstances. He had only some properties most of which were outstanding on mortgages. There was hardly any income from other properties for the maintenance of his wives, defendants 3 and 4. As the 3rd defendant was possessed of her Stridhanam properties and as she was childless, she left the management of these properties to the 4th defendant. There were litigations pertaining to the estate of the deceased Narayana Pillai and the 4th defendant's brother was helping these parties in conducting the same. To meet the costs of litigation, the 4th defendant's brother D.W.1 had advanced Rs.400/- and another sum of Rs. 200/- was intended to be spent for setting aside an auction in respect of certain other properties. Thus, the hypothecation bond Ext. I in favour of D.W.1 was supported by consideration and necessity. The cash consideration was utilised for discharging the arrears of Sirkar dues. The plaintiff was not a reversioner and so she was not entitled to bring the suit to set aside the sale. He alone was entitled to the property and the 2nd defendant had no right over the same. The cash consideration was utilised for discharging the arrears of Sirkar dues. The plaintiff was not a reversioner and so she was not entitled to bring the suit to set aside the sale. He alone was entitled to the property and the 2nd defendant had no right over the same. He pressed for the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff by a replication re-affirmed her allegations in the plaint. 3. The court below found that the sale deed was supported by consideration and necessity, that it was executed by a competent person, that the 3rd defendant was not a necessary party to it, that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The suit was dismissed directing the plaintiff to pay three-fourths of the costs to the 1st defendant. 4. Ext. II is the sale deed impeached. The first two recitals in Ext. II were for the redemption of admitted mortgages executed by the deceased Narayana Pillai and these were not questioned by the plaintiff. The third recital was a sum of Rs. 600/- directed to le paid to D.W.1 in whose favour Ext. I hypothecation bond had been executed by the 4th defendant on 26-5-1101. Of the Rs 600, Rs. 400/- was stated to have been received on a prior occasion for meeting the expenses in a suit filed by one Dharmaputhran Pillai Sivan Pillai and for depositing money for Puramboke and Puduval cases and Rs. 200/- was said to have been received for purposes of filing a suit to set aside the decree in O.S. 76 of 1096 obtained by the Punaloor Bank Ltd. The suit referred the first recital of Ext. I was one filed by Sivan Pillai against Narayana Pillai, the 3rd defendant and others. Narayana Pillai and the 3rd defendant were contesting the ease and after the death of Narayana Pillai the 4th defendant also was added as a party. Ext. V is copy of the judgment in that case and it is seen therefrom that she (the 4th defendant) remained ex-parte. So there was no necessity for the 4th defendant to spend any money on this account. As regards the amount required for deposit for the Puramboke and Puduval eases, it was admitted by the 1st defendant as D. W. 5 that those cases related to S. No. 3/1 which belonged to the 3rd defendant. So there was no necessity for the 4th defendant to spend any money on this account. As regards the amount required for deposit for the Puramboke and Puduval eases, it was admitted by the 1st defendant as D. W. 5 that those cases related to S. No. 3/1 which belonged to the 3rd defendant. There was, therefore, no necessity for the legal heirs of Narayana Pillai to deposit any money for those cases. The 1st defendant also stated that he was not present when these transactions were entered into and that he had only hearsay information about the same. It is, therefore, clear that there was no consideration or necessity so far as the first recital in Ext. I was concerned. As regards the second recital of Rs. 200 in Ext. I it was admitted that no suit, as contemplated, was filed to set aside O.S. 76 of 1096 obtained by .the Punaloor Bank Ltd. Thus Ext. I is lacking in consideration and necessity and it is not binding on the plaintiff who is to inherit the property after the death of the two widows. 5. As regards the fourth recital in Ext. II it was stated that the amount of 250 5/8 fanams had been received for payment of the arrears of tax. The 1st defendant was not able to mention the property for which tax was due. His examination would apparently show that he was referring to the arrears of tax due from the 3rd defendant. At any rate, he had not taken care to see that the amount was' paid and the-tax receipt got as a document in support of the payment of consideration or the application of that money for a necessity binding on the estate. Prima facie, therefore, the third and fourth recitals in Ext. II are lacking in consideration and necessity and not binding on Narayana Pillai's estate. The sale deed has, therefore, to be set aside. 6. On another ground also the sale deed is invalid, for on the death of Narayana Pillai, the properties were taken by his widows, defendants 3 and 4. II are lacking in consideration and necessity and not binding on Narayana Pillai's estate. The sale deed has, therefore, to be set aside. 6. On another ground also the sale deed is invalid, for on the death of Narayana Pillai, the properties were taken by his widows, defendants 3 and 4. The rights of two more or widows who succeed to the estate of a man have been authoritatively re-stated in a decision of the Privy Council in Gauri Nath v. Gaya Kuar, 55 I. A. 399 thus: "If a Hindu dies leaving two widows, they succeed as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. They are entitled to obtain a partition of separate portions of the property so that each may enjoy her equal share of the income accruing therefrom. Each can deal as she pleases with her own life interest, but she cannot alienate any part of the corpus of the estate by gift or will so as to prejudice the rights of the survivor or a future reversioner. If they act together, they can burden the reversion with any debts contracted owing to legal necessity, but one of them acting without the authority of the other, cannot prejudice the right of survivorship by burdening or alienating any part of the estate. The mere fact of partition between the two, while it gives each a right to the fruits of the separate estate assigned to her, does not imply a right to prejudice the claim of the survivor to enjoy the full fruits of the property during her life time." 7. This Court also had to consider this aspect in Pakian Pillai v. Thirunamakarasu Pandaram and others. 1950 K.L.T. 416, to which one of us was party. The principles laid down in Gauri Nath v. Gaya Kuar, 55 I. A. 399 had been adopted in that case as well. Thus the 4th defendant by herself was incompetent to sell the property without the junction of the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant was aware that the 3rd defendant also was a necessary party to the sale deed and he stated as D.W. 5 that he had consulted defendants 3 and 4 about the sale deed and that the 3rd defendant told him that she could not join in it, and that it was sufficient to take the sale deed from the 4th defendant alone. Thus, one of the widows had not given her consent to the sale deed. It would appear that on a later occasion the 1st defendant took a sale deed for the 3rd defendant's property which was adjoining to the plaint property and in that one of the boundaries of the property was mentioned to be the property obtained by the 1st defendant under Ext. II sale deed. That will not in any way validate the sale deed taken by the 1st defendant. 8. On both the grounds mentioned above, the sale deed has to be declared to be invalid. We, therefore, set aside the sale deed Ext. II. We do not, however, determine the mortgage amount chargeable on the property, for, that is a question that has to be considered when the plaintiff files the suit for redemption. It is held that the recitals three and four in Ext. II are not supported by consideration and family necessity and, thus, Ext. II stands cancelled. 9. In the result, we set aside the decree of the lower court and decree the plaintiff's suit with costs in both the courts. Allowed.