( 1. ) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Second Appeal No. 726 of 1970. (Vithalrao and others v. Ramkrishna and others.)

( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to both the appeals are as below: undisputedly, appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Maniram. It was also not in dispute that the plaintiffs along with their father Maniram and sadya, their uncle, formed a coparcenery joint Hindu family. It was also undisputed that apart from the suit lands, the joint family owned about 25 acres of agricultural lands under cultivation. There was no other source of income except from the cultivation of the agricultural holding left by Jhipar, the grand father of the plaintiffs. Jhipar left behind two sons Nandya and sadya. Sadya is alive. Nandya died leaving behind his son Maniram. The suit lands comprised of Khasra No. 34 area 1. 93 acres and Khasra No. 25/3 area 3. 00 acres total 4. 93 acres, rental Rs. 10. 37 p. situate at Magajgaon, tahsil Sausar, District Chhindwara. It was not disputed that Khasra No. 34 area 1. 93 acres was acquired by Sadya and Nandya (who was then alive) vide sale deed dated 13-4-1943 for a consideration of Rs. 1000. Similarly, Khasra no. 25/3 area 3. 00 acres was purchased by Sadya and Maniram for Rs. 1500 on 3-5-1945.

( 3. ) SADYA and Maniram executed a registered sale deed in respect of the aforesaid two Khasra numbers in favour of Parwatibai, the mother of the defendants for a consideration of Rs. 7000 on 23-5-1963. In pursuance of the aforesaid sale deed, Parwatibai entered into possession of the suit land. Parwatibai, however, died in the year 1967. The plaintiffs, being the minor sons of Mannam, challenged the validity of the sale deed executed by Maniram and Sadya on the ground that the suit lands belonged to the joint family of which the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were coparceners and Sadya and Maniram had no authority to transfer the same inasmuch as, the sale was not for any legal necessity The value of the lands was five times more according to the transactions, which had taken place on or about the date of sale in respect of similar lands. Sadya and Maniram, vendors of the defendants, were not impleaded as parties to the suit nor they have been examined by either side as witnesses. A sum of Rs. 6000, out of total consideration of Rs. 7000, is said to have been paid in advance a few days before 23-5-63, the date of execution of the sale deed and the remaining sum of Rs. 1000 was paid at the time of registration.

( 4. ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the lands by holding that the suit lands were the self-acquired assets of Sadya and Maniram and as such the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the same and could not challenge the alienation made in favour of Parwatibai In the alternative, it was also held that even if the suit lands belonged to the coparcenary, Sadya and Maniram, being the Karta of the said family affected the transfer of the suit land for legal necessity i. e. for payment of antecedant debts and meeting the expenses of marriage etc. and therefore the sale was valid and binding on the plaintiffs.

( 5. ) IN the first appeal, the lower appellate Court modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court held that Khasra no. 25/3 only was the self acquired property of Sadya and Nandya and did not belong to the joint family. Khasra No. 34, however, belonged to the joint family. But since, no legal necessity could be established to justify the transaction of the entire Khasra numbers for the proportionate consideration of Rs 2800, the plaintiffs were entitled to joint possession of the same to the extent of their 3/8th share along with the respondents.

( 6. ) THERE was no dispute amongst the parties regarding the extent of shares of the plaintiffs, which was admittedly 3/8th in the suit lands, if the same were held to be the property belonged to joint family and the remaining 5/8th belon