JUDGMENT

Daniels, J. - This is an appeal in a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to set aside on the ground of what of legal necessity two sales of joint family property made in the years 1904 and 1910 respectively. The deed of 1910 has been held by both Courts to be binding on the plaintiffs and the dispute is now confined to the deed of 1904. The two issues to be decided are:

Is the suit within time?

Was the alienation justified by legal necessity or antecedent debt?

2. The family to which the plaintiffs belong consists of four branches headed by the four sons of the common ancestor Jhingur Rai. The deed in suit was executed by the heads of all four branches. Two of the sons of Jhingur Rai, namely Jharap Rai and Dhanraj Rai, were alive and exeouted it. The other two Jadu Rai and Dhanoki Rai were dead but the deed was exeouted by the two sons of Jadu Rai and by the only son of Dhanoki Rai. The executants also admittedly included all the adult male members of the family at the time when the deed was executed. The plaintiffs are all minors Ijorn after the execution of the deed. They are respectively a grandson of Jadu Rai, two grandsons of Jharap Rai and one grandson of Dhanraj Rai. Th