(1.) The appeal is by the plaintiff and a cross-appeal by the defendants in an action in which the plaintiff claimed to set aside two transactions by a widow as not being justified by legal necessity. As regards one of the transactions, the learned Judges in the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff was established, and we have no concern with that part of the case. But as regards the second transaction for a sum of Rs. 2500, the learned Judge in the Court below, confirming the decision of the trial Court, has decided that of the Rupees 2600, Rs. 1300 was for justifying legal necessity but the balance was not, and has made this order agreeing with that made by the trial Judge: Defendants 3 and 4 and their heirs, representatives or assignees will be entitled to retain possession of the properties conveyed by the Kobala executed by defendant 1 beyond her lifetime on payment of Rs. 1200 together with interest thereon.
(2.) Neither the appellant before us nor the respondents justify that order and indeed it is impossible to hold that it should stand. The only question the Judge had to decide was whether the sale was justified: if it was not justified it should be set aside, if it were justified then it should stand, and no question of payment either by one party or the other to the opposite party could possibly come into the Judge's consideration. The learned Judge has dealt with the case very largely on the footing of arithmetic. He has gone through several items composing the consideration for sale and, as I have said, has held that as regards Rs. 1300 the sale was justified and as regards Rs. 1200 it was not.
(3.) There were three substantial items-making up the Rs. 1200 which had to be considered. The original debt together with interest amounted to about Rs 600, another Rs. 400 and a further item of Rs. 200. As regards the Rs. 600, it was made up of the debt on a hand-note owing to a creditor other than the defendant; the same is to be said as regards Rs. 200.