JUDGMENT :

1. This is a Second Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court rejecting the suit of the plaintiff.

2. It is the contention of the appellant-plaintiff that the lower Courts have committed serious error of facts and law in holding that the deceased had executed a sale deed at exhibit 34 for legal necessity. According to the appellant the lower Court, ought to have seen that the burden of showing that the sale deed was executed for legal necessity or that it was executed for payment of antecedent debts lay on the defendant and that the defendant has not laid any evidence on the point of existence of legal necessity justifying alienation of ancestral immovable property nor had he laid any evidence to show that exhibit 34 was executed by the Sendharam for the payment of his antecedent debts. It is also contended that though the Court has held that sale price was inadequate, instead of declaring the sale deed as not binding to the plaintiff, hold otherwise against the plaintiff. It is also contended that since there was no evidence on record to show that the anc