JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The plaintiffs have filed this second appeal believing the case of the defendant that he was the bonafide purchaser and the suit property was sold for the family need by the Karta. This Court admitted the appeal and held that the ground (I) involves the substantial question of law. The said ground is reproduced as follows.:

“(I) The trial court failed to frame the issue of legal necessity and therefore it caused injustice to the plaintiffs.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that framing of the issue of legal necessity was essential. In the absence of such issue, it was difficult for the parties to lead the evidence and produce the material, but this did not happen. He would submit that this question goes to the root of the case. The learned Trial Court as well the First Appellate Court incorrectly held that the respondent/purchaser is a bonafide purchaser.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/purchaser would submit that it was a collusive suit. The plaintiffs and the respondent’s father were residing under one roof. The plaintiffs were knowing well the legal necessities