(1.) KALU Rana (defendant No. 1) had two sons Gangadhar (defendant No. 2) and banchhanidhi (defendant No. 3) and a daughter Chandra who was implead-ed as respondent No. 1 (b) in the lower appellate Court, His wits Pata was also impleaded as respondent No. 1 (a) in the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff purchased the disputed land from defendant No. 1 by a registered sale deed Ext. 2 on 9-4-43 for Rs. 1200. Defendant No. 4 purchased 2/3rds of the suit land from defendants 2 and 3 by a registered sale deed Ext. A on 29-8-1943 for Rs. 880. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed land was the ancestral property of the family of kalu and the sale was for legal necessity and antecedent debts made by Kalu as the Karta of the family. The subsequent sale Ext. A by defendants 2 and 3 is not valid as they had no further subsisting interest. The suit is also for recovery of possession. The learned trial Court held that the suit land was the joint family property, but by the date of sale by Kalu there was disruption of joint status and that Kalu did not sell the property as the Karta for legal necessity and antecedent debts. He dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the trial Court's finding on all points. He held that the suit land constituted ancestral property of the family and Kalu sold the same tor legal necessity and antecedent debts, and the sale was binding and valid. He accordingly decreed the suit. Against the reversing decree this Second Appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of defendant No. 4,
(2.) MR. Mohanty raised the following contentions :--
(3.) THE finding of the lower Appellate Court that Ext. 2 was for consideration and supported by legal necessity and antecedent debts is a pure finding of fact and is not assailable in Second Appeal. After having carefully gone through the judgment of the lower appellate Court I am satisfied that the relevant materials have been taken into consideration. This contention must accordingly be rejected.