1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the minor sons of Deo Narain Singh, defendant respondent No. 4, against the latter and some other persona on the allegation that a Bale executed by Deo Narain Singh and his brother, Udit Singh, in respect of certain property, was invalid on, the ground that the said property was joint ancestral property. It appears that Deo Narain Singh and Udit Singh, his brother, executed a deed of gale, on the 28th November 1910, in respect of the property detailed in the plaint in favour of one Kali Charan Ahir in lieu of Rs. 400. Subsequent to the sale, Ram Sarup Singh, the appellant before us, sued and obtained possession of the property sold on the ground of pre-emption. The minor sons of Deo Narain Singh, after a lapse of ten years, brought a suit for the recovery of possession of the property conveyed by the deed of 28th November 1910, on the allegation that the said property was joint and ancestral and that the sale by their father and their uncle was neither for legal family necessity nor for antecedent debt and hene not binding upon the family. The plaintiffs further alleged that both their father and their uncle were leading immoral lives and the tale was effected in order to procure funds for purposes forbidden by the Hindu Law. The chief contesting defendant in the case is Ram Sarup, the defendant appellant before us, and he denied the allegations made in the plaint. He pleaded that Deo Narain Singh and his brother were not leading immoral lives nor did they sell the property without any legal family necessity or in lieu of antecedent debt. In fact he urged that the sale was made in order to pay off an antecedent debt. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim holding that the onus lay upon the plaintiff to prove the immoral character of their father and their uncle, and that, as a matter of fact the disputed sale was justified because it was made for legal necessity. On appeal by the sons, the learned District Judge took a different view of the case. He held that the onus lay upon the contesting defendant to prove that the sale of the 28th November 1910 was a good and valid sale made for legal family necessity. The evidence for the defense with regard to the object of the sale consisted of oral evidence which was disbelieved by the learned Judge. He, accordingly, set aside the decree of the First Court and allowed the claim of the plaintiffs. In second appeal before us it is contended, on behalf of the appellant, that the learned Judge was in error in casting the burden of proof upon the defendant. The argument is that as the family property had passed out of the family and was in possession of a third party, it was for the plaintiffs to make out a case as to the validity of the sale. On the other hand, the contention for the minor sons of the plaintiff in the case is that, in cases like the present, the onus is on the transferee to show that the disputed transfer was a good and valid transfer. Some cases were cited more or less bearing on the respective contentions. We find that the case of Gaya Prasad v. Raghunath Rai 12 Ind. Cas. 178 : 8 A.L.J. 1022 is more helpful than those relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties. it was laid down by a learned Judge of this Court, in that case, that if the burden of proof has upon a mortgagee, when the sons challenge his mortgage, the burden of proof certainly lies upon the purchaser when the sons challenge his purchase. No authority has been cited to the contrary to this principle, We, therefore, are of opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court with regard to the onus probandi was correct. The question whether the disputed sale in this sale was made for legal necessity or in lieu of antecedent debt, has been decided against the appellant and that decision is one of fact. We cannot, in second appeal, go behind it. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.