The main legal point established is that a sale of joint family property can be valid if it is for legal necessity and that the defendants can be estopped from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs after the period of limitation has expired.

( 1 ) THIS is a Second Appeal by one of the defendants, namely Upendra kumar Mahapatra from the concurrent decision dated 30-4-1986 of the sub-Judge, bargarh, passed in Title Appeal No. 18 of 1983 by which the suit is decreed.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Nos. 1 and 2 are wife and husband. As per the plaint averment late gouri Shankar Mahapatra, father of the defendants, in the capacity of Karta of the hindu undivided Joint family sold A. 1. 22 decimals of land as fully described in schedule 'a' of the plaint to plaintiff No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 22-6-1964 (Ext. 5)wherein defendant No. 3 is an attesting witness, to meet the pressing family necessity, delivered possession of it to her and since then the plaintiffs have been possessing the same. Before the sale defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who had already attained majority by then, executed an Ekrarnama (Ext. 4) authorizing their father, Gouri Shankar Mahapatra to alienate a portion of the joint family property. On 24/25-7-1980 the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed land, for which they filed Title suit No. 76 of 1980 in the Court of Munsif, bargarh praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land with cost.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement repelled the averments made in the plaint by stating that there was no such sale arid that the land in question was a part and parcel of their ancestral property and they along with their father and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had been possessing the same till the death of their father, whereafter they possessed it till they were restrained from entering it in an ad interim order of injunction passed in the aforesaid suit. They further pleaded that assuming, but not admitting that there was such a sale, since their father did not obtain prior consent of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who had already attained majority by then, for such sale, the defendants are not bound by the sale deed. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 adopted the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsif framed five issues, and after scrutinizing the evidence both oral and documentary, decreed the suit holding that gouri Shankar Mahapatra being authorized by defendant Nos. 3 and 4, sold the suit property to plaintiff No. 1 through a registered sale deed (Ext. 5) for legal necessity, that the plaintiffs have been possessing the same since then and that since the defendants did not file any suit within the period of limitation to set aside the sale, they are estopped from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. In appeal the Sub-Judge, Bargarh confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal by the defendant No. 2, Upendra Kumar mahapatra.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is nothing in the plaint to show that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 authorized their father, Gouri Shankar mahapatra, by executing Ext. 4, to sale away any land, but the trial Court traversed beyond the pleadings by holding that defendant nos. 3 and 4 are consenting parties to the sale in question. On perusal of the plaint it is found that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in Paragraph 1 thereof that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 executed an ekrarnama (Ext. 4) on 22-6-1964 authorizing their father to execute the sale deed. So it is wrong to say that there is no mention about execution of Ext. 4 by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the plaint.

( 6 ) IT is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the lace of glaring contradictions in the two documents viz. the alleged sale deed and Ekrarnama, with regard to the purpose for which money was required, the Court below acted on surmise by holding that there was legal necessity. Ext. 4 reflects that money was required to repay the loan in