JUDGMENT

Wazir Hasan, A J C - This is the plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of a suit for recovery of certain shares of zamindari property situate in villages Sarai Shankar, Gharauli and Dehlamou, Perganna Patti, district Partabgarh.

2. The plaintiff is a minor. His brother was Ram Charan. Ram Charan was made defendant No. 3 to the suit, out of which this appeal arises. Ram Charan was killed during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. His name has consequently been struck off the record of the case. On the 3rd March, 1922, Ram Charan sold the property in suit to defendants 1 and 2, Gur Charan and Sardar Saran Singh, respectively under a sale-deed of that date. Babu Hira Singh was added as defendant No. 5 to this suit on the ground that he claimed to be the real purchaser of the property in question. Another Defendant No. 4 to this suit, was Mt. Kailash Kuar. She obtained a decree for pre-emption in respect of the sale of 3rd March, 1922. The ostensible consideration, as stated in the sale-deed, is the sum of Rs. 4,000.

3. The plaintiff's case is that he and his brother Ram Charan constituted a joint Hindu family; that the property in suit was joint property of the family; that the defendant Ram Charan effected the sale of the 3rd March, 1922, without any consideration and without any legal necessity and that consequently the sale was not binding on the plaintiff and he was entitled to recover the property in suit from the hands of the defendants. In defence to this suit it was admitted that the plaintiff and Ram Charan were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the law of Mitakshara and that the property in suit was joint family property. It was pleaded that the sale in question was for consideration inasmuch as the sum of Rs. 4,000 was paid in cash to Ram Charan and that Ram Charan made the sale for the benefit of the family. The lower Court has upheld the defence and dismiss the suit.

4. On the question of consideration the plaintiff's case, as disclosed by the evidence, is that the real consideration for the sale in question was Rs. 1,000 only and that was the only amount which the defendant Ram Charan received from the vendees. The recitals in the sale-deed and endorsement made by the registering officer, however, show that the vendees paid the sum of Rs. 4,000 to Ram Charan. In explanation of this the plaintiff's case is that Ram Charan had sent Rs. 3,000. to be shown at the registration of the document as paid to him. The evidence in support of this part of the plaintiff's case has been discredited by the trial Judge, and nothing has been urged in appeal to induce me to disagree with the opinion of the learned Subordinate Judge on this question of fact.

5. On the question of legal necessity the case put forward by the defendants is that the share of the zamindari property situate in villages Shankar, Sarai and Gahrauli was a constant source of loss to the family; that the representation made by Ram Charan was that he had decided to sell that property to prevent loss in future and to buy with the sale proceeds fresh property near the residence of the family. The family lives in village Dehlamou, and a small property situate in that village was included in the sale-deed for the purpose of enabling the registration of the deed at the Partabgarh registration office. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted this case of the defendants as true. On the basis of the recital in the sale-deed in question he holds that the necessity for the sale represented by Ram Charan to the purchasers was the same as pleaded by the defendants. He further holds on evidence that there was always difficulty in managing these pieces of property and there was consequently always a loss; that there was no sir or khudkasht in those villages; that better properties were available nearer home; and that, as a matter of fact, property worth about Rs. 1,250 was purchased by Ram Charan near the family house. These findings are not disputed in appea