(1.) THIS is the defendants' appeal, arising out ofa suit for a declaration that a sale -deed, executedby pro forma defendant No. 4 Santosh Bala (whowas a minor at the time) through her father Rakhal.was not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiffclaims to be the reversioner to the estate of hisdeceased brother Golok. Santosh Bala, was thewidow of Golok. The sale appears to have beenmade by her on account of certain alleged legalnecessities, which were stated before the Courtsbelow by the answering defendants, who are thepurchasers under the aforesaid kobala and who arethe appellants before us, as necessities for her maintenance, necessities for meeting the expenses of treatment and Sradh of Golok and the necessity ofmeeting or paying some arrears of tent in respectof Golok's properties.
(2.) THE trial Court accepted the above defence of legal necessity and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The actual findings of the trial court were that the necessity for maintenance had been proved, at least to the extent of the amount mentioned, namely, Rs. 324/ -, but, so far as the other alleged necessities were concerned, the expenses for treatment of Golok had not been proved to have been incurred nor also was there any pressure for payment of the alleged rent dues, and, as to the Sradh expenses, the trial court's finding was not very definite either way. The learned Munsif, however, upon the view that, at least the maintenance expenses, which were necessary fox the widow and which were, certainly, a legal necessity, could not be met except by the sale of the disputed properties and, as the purchaser defendants paid a fair price, namely, Rs. 999/ - for the kobala in suit, the sale should be upheld and the plaintiff -reversioner's suit should be dismissed.
(3.) IT appears from the record before us that the learned Subordinate Judge, who heard and disposed of the above appeal, recorded a clear and specific finding which is found at page 16 of the Paper Book to the effect that