The substantial questions of law formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by defendant No. 2 & 3 are as under :

'1. Whether in the absence of proof of Will the property could be held to of the exclusive ownership of plaintiffs 1 to 3?

2. Whether in view of the fact that property was joint Hindu Family Property, provisions of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are attracted?'

2. The imperative facts required for determination of above-stated substantial questions of law are as under :

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court]

3. The plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit for the declaration that sale deed dated 21-1-1975 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2-Radhe Shyam, and the sale deed dated 22-2-1979 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 is null and void as the defendant No. 1 has sold the suit property without legal necessity, and prayed for declaration that sale-deeds are null and void and plaintiffs are entitled for decree for possession of subject suit land.

4. The defendant Nos. 2 & 3 filed their written statement controverting the plaint allegations stating inter alia that the subject suit property was exclusively held by late Shri Bharatlal; and after death of Bharat Lal, his wife Chanda Bai and plaintiffs succeeded to the suit property, and Chanda Bai, being the 'Karta' of the family sold the subject suit property for legal necessity and for the welfare of the plaintiffs and as such, the suit filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court, by its judgment & decree dated 24-11-1999, decreed the suit holding inter alia that sale made by defendant No. 1-Chanda Bai in favour of defendant No. 2-Radhe Shyam was without legal necessity and, as such, the sale made by defendant No. 2-Radhe Shyam in favour of defendant No. 3 is null & void and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

6. Appeal preferred by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 before the first appellate Court came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment & decree affirming the findings of the trial Court and holding that sale made by defendant No. 1-Chanda Bai was without the legal necessity.

7. Questioning the legality and validity of impugned judgment and decree, this second appeal under Section 100 has been preferred by appellants/defendant Nos. 2 & 3. The substantial question of law formulated has been incorporated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

8. Shri B. D. Guru, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant Nos. 2 & 3 would submit that subject suit property was the joint family property and, as such, the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (henceforth ' HMGA, 1956) are not attracted. He would further submit that the trial Court relied upon the Will allegedly executed by late Bharat Lal Awadhiya in favour of plaintiffs have neither been filed nor it has been proved in accordance with law and, therefore, reliance placed by the trial Court is absolutely illegal and the substantial questions of law framed by this Court also be answered in favour of the appellants/defendant Nos. 2 & 3 and the plaintiffs suit deserves to be dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.

9. Per contra, Shri B. P. Sharma & Shri Anukur Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs would submit that the trial Court, based on the material available on record, has clearly and categorically held that sale of the subject suit property was made by the defendant No. 1-Smt. Chanda Bai Awadhiya in favour of defendant No. 2-Radhe Shyam without legal necessity, and that finding has been affirmed by the first appellate Court by its judgment & decree dated 15-2-2000. He would further submit that such concurrent finding recorded by two Courts below have not been quest