Gokul Prasad, J.
1. The plaintiffs brought a suit to set aside a sale-deed of their share executed by their mother and certain other members of their joint family for a total consideration of Rs. 3,800 and: for possession thereof on the ground that the sale had been made without legal necessity. The defendants pleaded legal necessity.
2. The Trial Court found that only Rs. 491 were chargeable against the plaintiffs for legal necessity and that the remaining amount chargeable against their share was not so taken. It, however passed a curious decree upholding the sale in case the defendants-vendees paid Rs. 146 to the plaintiffs and in case of their failure to do so, decreed the plaintiffs' claim conditional on their paying Rs. 491 to the defendants-vendees which had been advanced for legal necessity and thus avoiding the sale-deed. The plaintiffs went up in appeal and the defendants filed a cross-objection. The lower Appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs share in the property sold amounts to 1 pie 6 krant and 2/3 dani. It has further found in agreement with the Court of first instance that out of the sale consideration the amount chargeable against the plaintiffs share to the extent of Rs. 491 was for legal necessity. It has accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' claim conditional upon their paying Rs. 491 aforesaid to the defendants-vendees. The defendants-vendees come here in second appeal. Their first contention is based on a misapprehension as I have already stated above. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found the extent of the plaintiffs' share. That ground of appeal therefore fails.
3. The second ground of appeal has no force because the property sold apparently included the khatas pertaining to the share sold.
4. Another point argued before me was that on the finding of the Court below as to the extent of the plaintiffs' share, the amount found to have been for legal necessity would have exceeded the value of that share. There is nothing on the record to warrant this assumption and this ground of appeal must therefore fails.
5. It has been argued before me that as the major part of the sale consideration was for valid necessity this sale should not be set aside. It is not easy to draw a line of demarcation in such cases nor has the learned Vakil for the appellants been able to show me any authority for such a proposition. Out of, the total consideration chargeable against the plaintiffs' share Rs. 491 only was for legal necessity, whereas Rs. 146 were found to have been without any such necessity. The view of the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court on this question of setting aside the sale finds support from the Division Bench ruling of this Court to be found in the case of Gobind Singh v. Baldeo Singh 25 A. 330 A.W.N. (1903) 57. See also, in this connection, the unreported case of Nathu Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal Since reported in 80 Ind. Cas. 226. [Ed.] decided on the 3th May, 1921, by Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ. Therefore, the decree of the lower Appellate Court seems to be correct. I dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court, fees on the higher scale.