T.C. Shrivastava, J.

This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed by Mst. Ghasnin against the judgment in Second Appeal No. 937 of 1955, decided on 7-8-1958. A cross-appeal has been filed by respondent No. 1 Mst. Kaushalya. The learned single Judge, who decided the second appeal, granted leave to both the parties to file appeals. The judgment disposes of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The appellant Mst. Ghasnin is the daughter of one Daji, respondent No. 2 Mst. Sonki is his widow and Mst. Fulki (respondent No. 3) is his daughter. Daji died on 25-8-1947 leaving behind his widow Mst. Sonki and two daughters Mst. Ghasnin and Mst. Fulki as also a son Mehtar. Mehtar died in September 1947. Daji had executed a will bequeathing his lands and house to his son Mehtar and therefore after his death, Mehtar succeeded to the property. After Mehtar's death, his mother Mst. Sonki (respondent No. 2) succeeded to the estate.

On 17-6-1948, Mst. Sonki executed a registered sale deed (Exh. P-2) in favour of Mst. Kaushalya (respondent No. 1) conveying her occupancy lands, area 5.30 acres, for Rs. 1,500 only. On 22-6-1948, she executed another sale deed (Exh. P-3) in favour of one Lachhman, who was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit, but has not been impleaded in this appeal. Mst. Fulki was impleaded as a defendant in the suit, as he refused to join as a plaintiff.

The appellant alleged that the transfers, which were made in favour of respondent No. 1 Mst. Kaushalya and respondent No. 2 Lachhman, were without any legal necessity and are not binding on her. Mst. Sonki remarried in 1948 and therefore the plaintiff-appellant became entitled to possession of the properties left by Daji as his heir.

We need not refer to the alienation made in favour of Lachhman, as that transaction is no longer in dispute.

Respondent No. 1 Mst. Kaushalya pleaded that the sale in her favour was for a cash consideration of Rs. 1,500 which was needed by Mst. Sonki partly for performing the obsequies and the immersion of the bones of Daji in the Ganges and partly for constructing a temple. She pleaded that she had made necessary enquiries regarding those necessities and had purchased the property after satisfying herself that the need existed.

The trial Court and the appeal Court decreed the suit holding that the necessity for the alienation had not been proved nor were the alleged enquiries by the vendee. The learned single Judge, however, held that Rs. 600 were spent in performing the obsequies etc. and the alienation was for legal necessity to that extent. The alienation, so far as it related for the purpose of raising money to construct a temple, was not upheld on the ground that the whole of the property could not be alienated for such a purpose. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed and the claim of the appellant for possession was decreed subject to her paying Rs. 500 to respondent No. 1 Mst. Kaushalya. In the appeal the appellant prays that she should be relieved of the condition to pay Rs. 500. In the cross-appeal, respondent No. 1 prays that the alienation should be wholly upheld, as the amount which was intended to be spent for constructing a temple justified it.

Shri N.N. Pande for the appellant raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the cross-appeal. The cross-appeal has been filed under Order 41, rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code within thirty days of the notice served on respondent No. 1 regarding the appeal. Although leave was granted to file appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Shri Pande contends that the provision relating to filing of a cross-appeal under Order 41, rule 22, has no application to appeals filed under the Letters Patent. It is true that the Letters Patent does not provide directly for filing of cross-appeals. However, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to appeals filed thereunder and, in our opinion, Order 41, rule 22 also applies. This is the view which was