Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The sale cannot be set aside as to 4/9ths of the property sold and upheld as to 5/9ths as done by the District Judge and as found by the District Judge the price for which the property was sold, i.e., Rs. 1,125 was proper. There was legal necessity for the sale to the extent of Rs. 651 and the sons are liable for the balance of Rs. 474 under the Rule of pious obligation. The vendee was not cross-examined regarding the representation made by the vendor and it is clear from what precedes in Ex. P-1 (a), the reply notice, that the word ' brothers' was a slip for' sisters'. The marriage of two of the daughters was celebrated about 2 years before the sale and there is no ground for doubting that the vendee acted honestly and after due enquiry as to the existence of necessity. He is not bound to see to the application of the purchase money and as held by the Privy Council in Sri Krishna Das v. Nathu Ram and Ram Sunder Lal v. Lachmi Narain (1929) 57 M.L.J. 7 : I.L.R. 51 All. 430 (P.C.) the sale cannot be set aside because the vendee was not able to prove conclusively how the surplus was applied. The decree of the District Judge is therefore set aside and the decree of the District MunsifF is restored with costs before the District Judge and here against the first and second respondents.
2. Leave is refused.