( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal against the judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this court. It arises out of a. suit for declaration. Two sale deeds were executed by Mt. Hubraji, widow of one Munnu Lal--one on 19th May 1939 for a sum of Rs. 100, the property conveyed by this sale deed consisted of certain groves and trees which had belonged to Munnu Lal, and the other on 7th November 1939, for a sum of Rs. 500 and the property conveyed by this sale deed was a residential house which had belonged to Munna Lal and which had come down to Mt. Hubraji as the widow of Munnu Lal. Both of these sale deeds were in favour of the defendants-appellants. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, Ram Sukh and Ram Nath, who claimed to be the daughters sons of Munnu Lal. The claim was only for a declaration that the transactions evidenced by these sale deeds were not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs case was that the sale deeds were without consideration and that further they were not supported by legal necessity. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that these transactions were vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested upon the pleas that the plaintiffs were not the next reversioners of munnu Lal, that the transfers were for consideration and legal necessity, and lastly that they were not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate court concurred in the finding that the plaintiffs were the daughters sons of Munnu Lal and that they were therefore, the next reversioners. It has also been found by both the Courts below that the two sale deeds were not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. Lastly, it has been found by them that though the sale deeds in question were for consideration they were not justified by legal necessity. On appeal to this Court a learned single Judge accepted these findings of fact. He was, however, pressed with the argument that the finding recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the sale deeds were not justified by legal necessity was vitiated in the eye of law by reason of the fact that the Courts below had misunderstood the legal position. The learned single Judge has considered this question of legal necessity at length. The only question which has been argued before us is the question of legal necessity. The facts found by the Courts below which have a bearing upon the existence of legal necessity are these : with regard to the sale deed of 19th May 1939, it has been found that the defendants-appellants had failed to prove that the widow Mt. Hubraji required money for her maintenance. With reference to this sale deed the learned single Judge has observed that the finding that there was no legal necessity for this sale deed is prima facie a finding of fact and it must be accepted as correct unless it be shown that it is vitiated by reason of error of law committed by the Courts below. Eventually the learned Judge recorded his own view that the findings of the lower Courts were correct, and that the Courts below had not violated any principles of law which should guide the Courts in cases of this kind. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended before us that this finding is not correct. His argument was principally based upon the decision of a learned single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of P. Kuthalinga Muddliar v. M. M. Shanmuga, A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 464. It is difficult to see what principle of general application was laid down in that case. It seems to us, as it seemed to the learned single Judge of this Court, that the decision in that case rested entirely upon the peculiar facts of that case. In that case the widow was living on what she could get by begging. The property in her possession was also not capable of yielding any appreciable income. These are the circumstances in which the learned single Judge, Devadass J. , came to the conclusion that the alienation of the property b