DAYARAM Vs. KASHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for partition of Hindu joint family property, the appellants (plaintiffs)also challenged certain alienations of the joint family property made by the manager in favour of the defendant alienees Ratnakar Jha (respondent 12), nandkishore Sao (respondent 13) and Smt. Sushiladevi (respondent 14) and claimed that the aforesaid alienations, not being for legal necessity, were not binding on them and that consequently the properties covered by the se alienations should be available for partition.

(2.) THE trial Court held the alienations to be for legal necessity and consequently binding on the estate. The plaintiffs have, therefore, come up in appeal.

(3.) THE alienations in question are three sales of three houses in the town of Durg made in favour of Ratnakar Jha, Nandkishore Sao and Smt. Sushiladevi on 19-61952, 21-6-1952 and 21-6-1952 respectively. The first was for a consideration of rs. 8,000/-, the second for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and the third for a consideration of Rs. 10,800/ -. The recitals regarding legal necessity in the registered sale deeds, which were more or less in similar terms, were that the alienor manager and the joint family needed the monies for making repayments to satisfy the liabilities connected with the business of the family: gesa vksj gekjs ifjokj dks vius O;kikj vksj mlds lecu/k dh nuxh jde dh vnkbz ds fy, jde dh t:jr gs the question is whether there is evidence to establish any such legal necessity.