Complete Justice
An alienation by a Hindu widow with justifying necessity is valid transfer The contents of the kabala deed dated 28.10.1944 executed by Shushila in favour of Jagobandhu and 'angikarnama' dated 28.10.1944 executed by Jagobandhu in favour of Shushila it would be apparent that Shushila transferred the suit land to Jagobandhu for her maintenance. Accordingly, S.A. Record of right was prepared in the name of Jogabondhu. An alienation by a Hindu widow with justifying necessity is valid transfer. In the "Angikarnama" Jagobondhu made promise stating, "..... দলিল গ্রহিতাকে জীবিত থাকা পর্যন্ত আমি খোরাক, পোষাক, লালন ও ভরণপোষণ করিব। যদি না করি তবে মাসিক মোসবা মং ১৫ টাকা হিসাবে দিব।" The plaintiff himself as P.W.1 admitted in his evidence that," আমার পিতার সঙ্গে ৯ নং বিবাদীনির এই মর্মে লিখিত দলিলপত্রে ২৮/১০/৪৪ইং চুক্তি হয় যে, আমার পিতা ৯নং বিবাদীকে খোরপোষ ও মাসো হারা বাবদ প্রতি মাসে ১৫/- টাকা দিবে।" It is true that the recitals in the deed regarding the legal necessity do not by themselves prove the legal necessity but the weight to be attached to such recitals. When the transaction took place many years ago, so that the original parties and the witnesses are not available to prove the circumstances in which alienation was made the alienation would be justified by legal necessity, particularly, when parties to the deed so recited. In view of such circumstances, it appears to us that Shushila transferred 90 acre of land to Jogobondhu on 28.10.1944 for her legal necessity...... Paresh Chandra Shil VS Kali Bala Shil, [4 LM (AD) 295]
