JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. --1. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for possession of the house as shown in Schedule 'A' situated at village Jawalpur, Patwari Halka No. 13, tehsil Janjgir, district Bilaspur, on the ground that by registered sale-deed dated 24.2.1955, they have purchased the suit house from one Satyabhama, widow of Nanki for the consideration of Rs. 900/- There was a partition between the plaintiff/appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and the property in suit fell in the share of plaintiff No. 1. The suit house was sold by Satyabhama for the purposes of purchasing another property situated at her parents place at village Bhainsmudi. After the death of Satyabhama on 30th December, 1979, on 31.12.1979 defendant/respondent Ramprasad took forcible possession of the suit property ousting plaintiff No. 1 Anjanbai, who was in possession of the same right from 24.2.1955. The defendant/respondent filed his written statement and denied allegations made in the plaint. In nut-shell the defendant/respondent's case is that the disputed house belongs to joint Hindu family of Satyabhama and the defendant/respondent, and they were in joint possession of the same. After the death of Satyabhama he remained in possession of the suit house in his own right and, thus no decree for possession can be granted against him. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs against which the plaintiffs had preferred appeal. The lower appellate Court has recorded the findings that Satyabhama's husband Nanki died in the year 1955 and after the death of Nanki Satyabhama became limited owner of the suit property. Satyabhama transferred the suit property when she had not become the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the death of Satyabhama the property reversed back to the reversioner and, Ramprasad defendant being reversioner is in possession in his own right and he cannot be dispossessed by purchaser from Satyabhama, i.e., by the plaintiffs and, consequently dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have preferred Second Appeal in the High Court which is registered as S.A. No. 68/1986. The High Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether from the material on record it was proved that respondent No.1 Ramprasad was the next reversioner of deceased Nanki and acquired title to the suit house after the death of Nanki's widow, Satyabhama? The High Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether from the material on record it was proved that respondent No.1 Ramprasad was the next reversioner of deceased Nanki and acquired title to the suit house after the death of Nanki's widow, Satyabhama? (2) If the above question is answered in the negative, are the appellants entitled to recover possession on the basis of the sale deed in their favour and their continuous possession under?" 3. To adjudicate the questions of law, it is necessary to find out the relationship between the parties and their respective right in the suit property. The whole family tree of Satyabhama and Ramprasad is given in paragraph 9 of the evidence of D.W.1 Ramprasad. As per the statement, in paragraph 9, Bhagirath and Ayodhya Prasad were two brothers. Bhagirath had two sons, viz. Nanki and Atmaram, Nanki died in the year 1955 leaving behind his widow Satyabhama who died on 30th December, 1979. Atmaram had also died leaving behind his widow who is still alive. Bhagirath's brother Ayodhya Prasad had 3 sons - Haldhan Prasad, Janki Prasad and Ramprasad the defendant That there was a partition between Bhagirath and Ayodhya Prasad and; thereafter there was a partition between Nanki and Atmaram, the sons of Bhagirath, of the properties allotted in partition. The property in suit fell in the share of Nanki. On these admitted facts by the defendant, it is clear that Nanki died in the year 1955; after the death of Nanki Satyabhama became owner of the suit property, who died on 30th December, 1979, and Atmaram brother of Nanki has died leaving behind his widow who is still alive. Ramprasad is Nanki's uncle's son. 4. Husband of Satyabhama, Nanki died in the year 1955. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had not come into force till 17th June, 1956. Thus, right in the suit property of her husband devolved upon Satyabhama by virtue of Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. Ramprasad is Nanki's uncle's son. 4. Husband of Satyabhama, Nanki died in the year 1955. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had not come into force till 17th June, 1956. Thus, right in the suit property of her husband devolved upon Satyabhama by virtue of Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. Under section 3, when a Hindu dies intestate leaving separate property or interest in Hindu joint family property governed by any school of Hindu law or by customary law except Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, his widow shall be entitled to, in a case of separate property, same share as that of his son, and in case of interest in Hindu Joint family property as the husband himself had, with the rider that the interest shall be the limited interest known as Hindu Women's estate. She shall have same right of claiming partition. Under the Act 1937 a Hindu widow had demonstrable entitlement which her husband was entitled in his self acquired property or joint Hindu family property. If Hindu died intestate, prior to this enactment the widow of a Hindu was not a heir to his property in the presence of his son. In Goguia Gurumurthy and others v. Kurimati Ayyappa [ AIR 1974 SC 1702 ], the Supreme Court explains the right of a widow under the Act, 1937, as under:- "A Hindu widow is entitled to the full beneficial enjoyment of the estate. So long as she is not guilty of willful waste, she is answerable to no one. Her estate is not a life-estate, because in certain circumstances she can give an absolute and complete title. Nor is it in any sense an estate held in trust for reversioners. Within the limits imposed upon her, the female holder has the most absolute power of enjoyment and is accountable to no one. She fully represents the estate, and, so long as she is alive, no one has any vested interests in the succession. The limitations upon her estate are the very substance of its nature and not merely imposed upon her for the benefit of reversioners. She is in no sense a trustee for those who may come after her. She is not bound to save the income, nor to invest the principal. If she makes savings, she can give them away as she likes. She is in no sense a trustee for those who may come after her. She is not bound to save the income, nor to invest the principal. If she makes savings, she can give them away as she likes. During her lifetime she represents the whole inheritance and a decision in a suit by or against the widow as representing the estate is binding on the reversioner heirs. It is the death of the female owner that opens the inheritance to the reversioners, and the one most nearly related at the time to the last full owner becomes entitled to possession." 5. The powers of a widow in respect of the property inherited by her from her husband can be classified as powers of (i) enjoyment, (ii) management, (iii) representation; and (iv) alienation. A widow is not a tenant for life, but is owner of the property inherited by her with certain restrictions on alienation and subject to its devolving upon the next heir of the last full owner on her death. The widow being owner of the life-estate can transfer all her life interest in the property to anyone she likes. To confer absolute right in the property transferred by limited owner in the properties held as limited owner; it has to be demonstrated that such transfer was effected on account of religious or charitable purposes or other purposes amounting to legal necessity. Interest in the widow's estate vests in reversioner, the heir of the last full owner who would be entitled to succeed to the estate of such owner, and therefore, the heir of the last full owner is entitled to challenge alienation made by the limited owner, i.e., widow. Everyone who may have a possibility of succeeding on the death of the widow is not competent to challenge alienation made by the widow. Right to challenge alienation by suit, rests in the first instance with the next reversioner only unless it is shown that next reversioner refuses without sufficient cause to take legal course or concurred with the act alleged or colluded with the widow in the impugned act of transfer or is being precluded by his own conduct to challenge such transfer or because of his poverty is not in a position to challenge the transfer made by the widow. (Mulla Hindu Law, Sixteenth Edition, Article 207). (Mulla Hindu Law, Sixteenth Edition, Article 207). The transfer made by a Hindu widow, a limited holder, in excess of her power is not void but only voidable at the instance of the next reversioner, in S. Shanniugam Pillai & others v. K. Shanmugam Pillai & others [ AIR 1972 SC 2069 ], the Supreme Court has approved the observations made by the Madras High Court in a case reported in (1946) I Mad. L.J. 276 (Makineni Virayya v. Madamanchi Bapayya) as under:- "These decisions will be found on examination to proceed on the principle that an alienation by a Hindu widow without justifying necessity is not void but only voidable at the instance of the reversionary heir who may either affirm or avoid it, but will be precluded from questioning it if he does something which amounts to an affirmation of the transaction." 6. The transaction made by Satyabhama, widow of Nanki, on 24.2.1955 is in the capacity of a limited owner and, therefore, no doubt, the right in the property transferred, is a limited estate or widow's estate, which had reverted back to the reversioner on the death of Satyabhama on 30.12.1979. It is only the reversioner who can challenge the transaction made by Satyabhama in favour of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have right to defend the transfer on the grounds of the legal necessity or for the purpose charitable or religious. Transaction of sale is not void ab initio but only voidable at the instance of the nearest reversioner. The question is whether the respondent Ramprasad is nearest reversioner or Nanki when his brother's widow is alive according to the statement of Ramprasad. The question of nearest relation of Nanki, husband of Satyabhama, will be adjudicated in accordance with as it stands at the time of death of Satyabhama on 30.12.1979. When Satyabhama died on 30th December, 1979, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had come into force, and as per section 8 of the said Act brother's widow is heir of Nanki, falling under Class II, Entry VI of the Schedule. Brother's widow is Class II heir; whereas uncle's son is not a heir under Class I or II of the Schedule. Brother's widow is Class II heir; whereas uncle's son is not a heir under Class I or II of the Schedule. Atmaram's widow being Class II heir under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, she will exclude Ramprasad defendant/respondent, and as such, so long as Atmaram's widow is alive Ramprasad is not reversioner of Nanki, consequently he has no right to challenge the transfer made by Satyabhama in favour of the plaintiffs. As Ramprasad is not nearest reversioner of Nanki he does not get any right to remain in possession of the suit property. Further, Ramprasad being uncle's son does not get the right to challenge the transfer by institution of the suit as nearest reversioner. In any case, transfer made by Satyabhama in favour of the plaintiffs, has .not been challenged by defendant Ramprasad in the present proceedings. The plaintiffs having purchased the suit property by registered sale-deed dated 24.2.1955, they have right to be in possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs' dispossession by Ramprasad, defendant, by using force is contrary to law. Consequent thereof, the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of possession against defendant Ramprasad, being purchaser of the suit house from Satyabhama. 7. As the result thereof, the appeal succeeds and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and lower appellate Court are set aside. The question of law No.1 having been decided in favour of the appellants, there is no necessity of deciding question of law No.2 framed by this Court. 8. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule if certified.