BANDHU RAM Vs. RAM KISHUN SONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs in the four suits which have given rise to these appeals are the sons of Jangli Sonar who was impleaded as the third defendant. The suits were brought to set aside four transactions of sale carried out by Jangli in favour of the other defendants to the suits on the allegation, among others, that there was no legal necessity for them.

(2.) The Court of first instance decreed the claims subject to payment of certain sums which in its opinion were binding debts for which the plaintiffs were liable. The lower Appellate Court, though differing from the First Court in respect of some of its findings, affirmed the decrees in all four suits. It is argued in second appeal that on the findings arrived at by the District Judge he ought to have held that all four transfers were for legal necessity and ought, in consequence, to have dismissed the suits.

(3.) The four sale-deeds were for a total consideration of Rs. 4,799-15-0, made up of the following items: (a) Rs. 4,100 left for payment to one Sheo Saran Sahu on account of his mortgage dated the 14 August 1915; (b) Rs. 249-15-0 due in respect of a promissory-note of the 15 August 1917. (c) Rs. 50 paid in cash to the vendor prior to registration; and , (d) Rs. 400 paid to one T3iks for repairs of a house belonging to the family.