Chagla C.J.

1. In the suit from which this appeal arises, an alienation made by defendant 6, who is the father of plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 and the husband of plaintiff 4, was challenged. The alienation was a mortgage dated 6-6-1932, and the alienation was in favour of defendants 1 to 5. The trial Court upheld the challenge and declared that the mortgage was not binding upon the plaintiffs share which he assessed at four-fifths.

2. In this appeal Mr. Merchant on behalf of the alienees has first contended that there is no evidence which would justify a finding that the property alienated was joint family property. The plaintiffs came to Court on the allegation in their plaint that the property was joint family property and that allegation was met by defendants 1 to 5 by the assertion that the property was alienated by defendant 6 for legal necessity. Defendants 1 to 5 in their written statement did not controvert the allegation of the plaintiffs that the property was joint family property. In view of that state of the pleadings, in our opinion, it was unnecessary for the plaintiffs to prove at the trial that the property was joint family property. That allegation must be deemed t