HARI Vs. GHISU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MALIK Makbuja field No. 117, area 1.88, of mouza Balrampur, tahshil Khandwa, originally belonged to defendants 3 and 4. During their minority their mother sold the same to defendants 1 and 2 by a sale-deed dated 26th March 1918 for Rs. 200 for alleged legal necessity as specified in the said deed of sale. After attaining majority defendants 3 and 4 sold the same field to the plaintiff on 16th January 1926 for Rs. 300. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the present suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 26th March 1918 and for recovery of possession of the field as against defendants 1 and 2, who were in possession. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that, as the sale was for legal necessity and benefit to the minors, it was binding upon them and they could not, therefore, re-sell the property to the plaintiff.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have concurrently held that the legal necessity as specified in the recitals in the sale-deed and the pleadings was not proved, but dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the sale benefited the estate and the minors and was, therefore, binding on them.

(3.) THE plaintiff comes up in second appeal and his learned advocate, while not challenging the adverse findings of fact as to legal necessity arrived at by the Courts below, urges that there being no-evidence on record that the consideration, of Rs. 200, which was paid to the mother of the defendants 3 and 4 as manager, was either added to the estate of the minors or spent by her in improving the same the findings arrived at by the two lower Courts that the estate was benefited by the transaction could not be sustained. The learned pleader for the respondents frankly admitted that there was not an iota of evidence ' to show that Rs. 200 received by the mother as consideration went really to benefit the estate, but he asked this Court to presume that which the Courts below evidently did.