LAKHRAM SINGH Vs. SHEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs brought a suit to set aside a sale-deed of their share executed by their mother and certain other members of their joint family for a total consideration of Rs. 3,800 and: for possession thereof on the ground that the sale had been made without legal necessity. The defendants pleaded legal necessity.

(2.) The Trial Court found that only Rs. 491 were chargeable against the plaintiffs for legal necessity and that the remaining amount chargeable against their share was not so taken. It, however passed a curious decree upholding the sale in case the defendants-vendees paid Rs. 146 to the plaintiffs and in case of their failure to do so, decreed the plaintiffs claim conditional on their paying Rs. 491 to the defendants-vendees which had been advanced for legal necessity and thus avoiding the sale-deed. The plaintiffs went up in appeal and the defendants filed a cross-objection. The lower Appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs share in the property sold amounts to 1 pie 6 krant and 2/3 dani. It has further found in agreement with the Court of first instance that out of the sale consideration the amount chargeable against the plaintiffs share to the extent of Rs. 491 was for legal necessity. It has accordingly decreed the plaintiffs claim conditional upon their paying Rs. 491 aforesaid to the defendants-vendees. The defendants- vendees come here in second appeal. Their first contention is based on a misapprehension as I have already stated above. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found the extent of the plaintiffs share. That ground of appeal therefore fails.

(3.) The second ground of appeal has no force because the property sold apparently included the khatas pertaining to the share sold.