A contract of sale entered into by the karta of a joint Hindu family for legal necessity is binding on all the members of the family, including minor coparceners, and it is not necessary to establish actual benefit to the minors in addition to the legal necessity.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This Second Appeal By the defendants arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract. In this case there is a competition between a contract of sale and a completed sale deed. The plaintiff had a contract of sale dated the 1st Chait, 1352 Jhasli, corresponding to the 9th March, 1955, executed in his favour by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had contracted to sell to the plaintiff 9 kathas of land for Rs. 500, and this contract of sale was entered into to raise money to meet the expenses of marriage of defendant No. 1 himself. It appears that the defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendants second party on the 17th of January, 1955, in respect of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 400, which was subsequently registered on the 16th of May, 1955. In point of time, therefore, the sale deed in favour of defendants second party was prima facie earlier than the contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

The case of the plaintiff was that this sale deed was in fact executed after the contract of: sale in his favour and was ante-dated. Defendants first party, however, denied that they had executed any contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff, and they denied also the receipt of the consideration. They admitted the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendants second party. The latter also raised the same defence, and, in addition, pleaded that they were bona fide transferees for value without notice of the contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff was genuine and for consideration and also for legal necessity inasmuch as the marriage expenses of defendant No. 1 was in law a legal necessity. They also held that the sale deed in favour of defendants second party was not genuine and was in fact executed after the contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff and was ante-dated. They also held that defendants second party were not bona fide purchasers and had notice of the contract of sale and have not also paid the consideration. Accordingly, both the Courts have gratned the plaintiff a decree for specific performance of contract.

2. Before I proceed to consider the points urged in this appeal, it will be necessary to mention one more fact. From the Judgment and decree of the learned Munsif two appeals had been preferred, one by the defendants first party and the other by the defendants second party. In appeal defendants first party raised the same contentions as they had urged before the learned Munsif. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

3. Mr. B. C. De appearing for the appellants contended that the contract of sale was not binding on the minor defendants first party inasmuch as it was not for the benefit of the minors. His contention is that the marriage expenses of defendant No. 1 may constitute legal necessity, but under the Hindu law, in order to bind the minors the existence of legal necessity was not adequate. The plaintiff had further to prove benefit to the minors. In support of his contention he referred to a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Subrahmanyam V, Subba Rao, reported in 75 Ind App 115: (AIR 1948 PC 95). Learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff respondent argued that this ground was not available to the appellants inasmuch as the appeal preferred by the defendants first party from the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif was dismissed, and no further appeal has been taken by them to this Court. And in support of his contention he referred to a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Bhup Narain Singh V/s. Gokul Chand Mahton, reported in 61 Ind App 115: (AIR 1934 PC 68). In my opinion, the contention of learned Counsel for the respondent is correct and must be upheld.

In that case the plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of certain immovable property. An agreement was e