FAKIRCHAND Vs. RATANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Learned trial court has found that the property in question had been mortgaged for sum of Rs.2500/- and was taken back on rent, which rent defendant No.3 Mangilal could not pay, and therefore the suit has been filed, which was decreed and in execution the property has been attached. Likewise the defendant No.3 had also borrowed Rs.3,000/- from Mangilal Sehalot, and for recovery of that amount also suit has been filed and decreed, in the execution of that decree also property in question was attached, and it was in these circumstances, that the property was sold, and the purchaser has come in the witness box, and has proved to have himself paid the amount to aforesaid decree-holders, and also to have got redeemed the house by repaying the mortgage money. The property is said to have been sold for Rs.7,500/-. Thus it is clear that the property was sold for legal necessity of the family. This finding has been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court.

(3.) It was sought to be argued that it is not established on record, that the loan which is said to have been taken by Mangilal, or by mortgaging the property, was taken for family necessity, or moral purpose, and therefore even if the sale proceeds are said to have been used for repayment of those loans, still it cannot be said that the property was sold for legal necessity.