1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover possession of the property sold by their father Sham Lal, defendant No. 9, to Mst. Phul Kuwari in 1902 for a sum of Rs. 1,455. It is stated in the judgment of the trial Court that the vendee was the wife of Sham Lal's own cousin. The property was joint family property and the plaintiff's case was that the sale was executed without legal necessity. The sale was the subject of a pre-emption suit and the defendantsiare transferees from the successful pre-emptor. The pre-emption suit was decreed on payment of the full sale price. The sale in dispute was for cash paid in presence of the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the deed to the extent of Rs. 1,301. The remainder of the consideration was left with the vendee for payment of three prior debts,
1. A mortgage-debt due to Raghubar
2. Another Mortgage 20
3. To pay off a pro-note due to Ganga
2. The trial Court found that legal neoessity was established to the extent of Rs. 109 only and decreed the suit for possession subject to payment of this amount. The defendants 1 to 8 appealed and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections objecting to the order directing and will even assist him in asserting that right and having the benefit of it.'
3. I would allow the appeal, and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellant is entitled to his costs both in this Court and in the Court below. The cross-appeal is dismissed. Let the hearing of the suit be expedited.
Ross, J.--I agree.