The burden of proof is on the alienee to establish that the alienation of joint family property was supported by legal necessity or benefit of the family or that he made reasonable enquiry about the existence of such necessity.

R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs are in appeal against the confirming judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karanjia (presently designated as Civil Judge, Senior Division) in Title Appeal No. 2 of 1982.

( 2 ) ONE Nityananda Das had initially filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession of the lands described in schedule-A of the plaint. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and upon his death his sons were substituted as plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience Nityanands Das would be referred to as the plaintiff in the present appeal.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF's case, in brief, is that Indramani Mundian and Rangu Mundian were real brothers. The lands described in lot nos. 1 and 2 of schedule-4 of the plaint originally belonged to Karuna Jena of Khuntiposi who transferred the same to Govinda Mundian, father of Indramani and Ranga, on 19-8-1962. Both Indramani and Rangu sold away lot no. 1 to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- by a registered sale deed dated 11-2-1971. Subsequently Rangu alone sold lot no. 2 to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 140/- by a registered sale deed dated 20-12-1971. Having acquired the aforesaid lands by virtue of purchase, the plaintiff remained in possession by constructing a house on a portion thereof. Alternatively the plaintiff claimed to have perfected title by prescription to the said lands by being in possession for more than the statutory period to the knowledge of the defendants. In the current settlement the whole of the suit lands stood recorded in the name of the plaintiff as described in schedule B of the plaintiff. The village of the plaintiff being at a distance of 64 Kms. from the suit lands it was difficult on his part to personally cultivate it. He, therefore, entrusted to one Daitari Mahanta of village Khuntaposi to look after the cultivation. The defendants in order to dispossess the plaintiff trespassed into a portion of the suit lands described in schedule C of the plaint and sowed paddy on 14-6-1987. This led the plaintiff to approach the local police whereupon a criminal case was initiated against them. Simultaneously a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. was also initiated. Ultimately the plaintiff approached the learned Munsif, Karanjia by filing the present suit seeking necessary reliefs as aforesaid. 3a. Defendants 1 to 5 filed joint written statement denying the plaintiff's case. They pleaded, inter alia, that the suit lands were their joint family properties in which they and their fathers had equal shares. The family had no legal necessity at the relevant time and the sales effected by their fathers in respect thereof are not binding on them. They have further urged that upon the death of their fathers, they are all along in possession of the suit lands. They, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff having no right, title or interest in the suit lands is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

( 4 ) IN view of the above pleadings, two questions that arose for consideration before the trial Court were :- (i) Whether there was any legal necessity of the joint family to alienate the suit land by Indramani and Rangu, fathers of defendants 1 to 5? and (ii) Alternatively, whether the plaintiff acquired title to the suit land by prescription?

( 5 ) SO far as question No. (i) is concerned, learned trial court on a scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the plaintiff utterly failed to prove that the joint family consisting of Indramani, Rangu and the defendants had legal necessity to alienate the suit lands under Exts. 3 and 4 and therefore, the transfers being not valid and genuine, did not bind the interest of the defendants.

( 6 ) COMING to question no. (ii), at the outset it may be stated that the plaintiff though asserted in his pleading that he has perfected his title in respect of the suit lands by being in possession for more than the statutory period, but n