The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the plaintiffs' rights under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and the requirement of legal necessity for the sale of ancestral property.

( 1 ) THE judgment and decree passed by the learned District judge, South and West at Namchi, South sikkim in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2002 is the subject matter under challenge in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in a short compass, are as follows :-The two minor plaintiffs, namely, mahendra Bir Lama and Shoundarya Bir lama represented by their mother and legal guardian Smt. Anjita Lama, the principal respondents herein, Instituted a suit being civil Suit No. 8 of 2000 before the Court below for the following reliefs :-" (a) A decree declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the schedule "b' property/suit land; (B) Declaration to the effect that the defendant No. 1 has no right, title and interest over the suit property; (c) A decree to the effect that the defendant No. 2 had or has no right to sell the property mentioned in schedule "b' as the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the said property; (d) A decree restraining the defendant no. 1 from using the suit property in any manner whatsoever; (e) A decree for recovery of possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs: (f) A decree of cost of the suit; (g) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled in law and also in equity. "by contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, namely, Shri basant Bir Lama, the proforma respondent herein, are Hindus and are governed by mitakshara School of Hindu Law and the plaintiffs' father Shri Basant Bir Lama, the proforma respondent herein, had purchased a plot of lands at Sukhapool, East Sikkim out of the nucleus of the ancestral properties acquired by him from his ancestors and that the plaintiffs have equal right over the said property described in Schedule 'a' of the plaint as coparceners along with their father defendant No. 2 (proforma respondent herein] , but the defendant No. 2 (proforma respondent herein), in collusion with the defendant No. 1 (the appellant Shri Bishnu kumar Rai herein) sold a portion of the said land to the appellant and the land so far sold to the appellant is described in schedule 'b' of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit land ). According to plaintiffs, the defendant No. 2, i. e. their father had/has no right to alienate the suit land to anyone else including the defendant No. 1 and apart from that such alienation of the suit land by the defendant No. 2, (the present appellant herein) was not for any legal necessity. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that though they are minors, they are coparceners with their father defendant No. 2 (proforma respondent herein) with respect to the ancestral properties including the suit land described in Schedule 'b' of the plaint and accordingly, they have sought for the reliefs mentioned above before the trial Court. The suit was subsequently transferred to the file of the Ld. District Judge, South and West at namchi, Sikkim and there it was renumbered as Civil Suit No. 13 of 2002.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Court decided the case after recording the statement of the witnesses produced by the parties and after perusal of evidence on record, thus decreeing the suit and declaring that the plaintiffs have got their right, title and interest over the suit land and defendant No. 2 (proforma respondent-father) had/has no right to sell the suit property and also that the appellant/defendant No. 1 has no right, title and interest over the suit land and as such, the plaintiffs, the principal respondents herein, are entitled to the decree for recovery of possession of the suit land i. e. two plots of land measuring 100' x 12' and 60' x 6' (in total 1560 sq. ft.) of the land situated at Sichey block Gangtok bearing Khasra No. 631/ 1147 (earlier it was 631) Khatian No. 256 recorded in the name of the defendant No. 2, out of the properties described in schedule 'a' of the plaint with the boundaries described in the schedule of the plaint.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the impugned judgment