Judgement

Appeal (No. 60 of 1926) from a decree of the High Court (February 21, 1922) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Ferozepore.

The suit was brought by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, two minor members of a Hindu joint family, to set aside a sale of part of the ancestral property made by the managing member.

The trial judge dismissed the suit, but on appeal to the High Court (Rossignol and Abdul Qadir JJ.) the sale was set aside.

The facts of the case and the grounds of the decision appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1927. Feb. 14, 15. Dube for the appellants. The High Court took a mistaken view of the facts. The evidence shows that Rs.38,400 out of the Rs.43,500 sale price was applied to discharge debts existing at the time of the sale. The purchasers were not bound to account for the balance and were entitled to have the suit dismissed Krishn Das v. Nathu Ram. (( 1927) L. R. 54 I. A. 79.) The High Court wrongly gave weight to a supposition that the money could have been better raised by mortgage Phool Chand Lal v. Rughoobuns Suhaye. (( 1865) 9 Suth. W. R. 108.) Further that part of the price which was not applied to discharge debts was applied to carrying