The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish legal necessity and antecedent debt for invoking the doctrine of pious obligation under Hindu Law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23-8-1976 passed by the additional civil judge, dharwar in r. a. No. 91/1972. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS filed o. s. No. 230/1969 on the file of munsiff, dharwar praying for a decree against the defendant for declaration that the sale deed dated 29-6-1967 by their father in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit house and the decree obtained by the defendant in o. s. No. 49/1969 against their father are illegal and void and not binding on them and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from executing the said decree in o. s. No. 49/1969.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint can be briefly summarised as follows: the suit property comprising the house and a backyard bearing t. p. c. No. 832 of hebballi village in dharwar taluk is the coparcenary property consisting of plaintiffs and their father and that the plaintiffs have got distinct interest therein. The suit property has been in their possession and that of their mother and grand-mother. The father of the plaintiffs basappa desai was an extravagant man and he was addicted to all vices and so in order to meet out his expenses it appeared that he raised some petty loans by leasing the joint family lands. The joint family lands at that point of time were in the possession of savantrawa, the minor guardian of plaintiffs as she had left interest in the suit properties. Savantrawa filed a suit for injunction against the father of the plaintiffs and defendant and others restraining them from interfering with her enjoyment of the lands. Thereafter, the defendant failing in his attempts to satisfy his debt out of the lands it appears that he made the father of the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed (and a lease deed) dated 29-6-1967 in respect of the suit property. The transaction was fraudulent. The suit house was worth Rs. 3,000/- but the same was sold only for Rs. 2,000/ -. Even the amount mentioned in the sale deed was not received in full by the father of plaintiffs. The whereabouts of the father of the plaintiffs were not known to the plaintiffs. The sale was without consideration and was not binding upon the plaintiffs. Sometime before the suit was filed, defendant filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the father of the plaintiffs on the strength of the sale deed referred to earlier in o. s. No. 49/1969 on the file of the munsiff, dharwar. He obtained an ex-parte decree on 15-11-1969. The said decree was not binding upon the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were not parties to the said suit. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs have filed the suit in question praying for the reliefs referred to earlier.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT resisted the suit of the plaintiff by his written statement. He denied the allegation that the suit property was the joint family property of the plaintiffs and their father. He asserted that the suit property was the self-acquired property of basappa. Basappa had purchased the same out of his own funds. After defendant purchased the suit property, basappa was actually residing in the suit property as a tenant and plaintiffs were also residing along with basappa as tenants without any independent right. The suit filed by savantrawa referred to in the plaint against the plaintiffs' father and others had nothing to do with the instant defendant. The allegation that she obtained a fraudulent sale deed is denied by him. It is the contention of the defendant that as basappa was hard pressed and for legal necessity he took out the suit property for sale and this defendant purchased the suit property for Rs. 2,000/ -. He denied the allegation made in the plaint that the whereabouts of basappa were not known. Defendant has asserted that the decree obtained by him against basappa is binding on the plaintiffs and that the same is neither void nor null. On these gro