1. These are two appeals preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 14th September 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bishunpur. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a piece of land held by the defendants under a permanent lease granted by the maternal grandmother of the plaintiffs in the year 1855. The lease was granted for a premium and an annual rent of Rs. 9. The money, according to the lease, was required for the purpose of paying off a creditor of the deceased husband of the grandmother of the plaintiffs; and that would, therefore, be a case of legal necessity. Of course, in a case like this, no direct evidence can be given at this length of time as to what actually took place; but the recitals in the deed, if true, show a case of legal necessity. Those recitals are no doubt consistent with the probabilities and the circumstances of the case because there was, in fact, an usufructuary mortgage and it was paid off by this money. These facts are quite clear. The defendants have been enjoying the land under the lease since the year 1855. The fact that the mother of the present plaintiffs did not take any steps with reference to the lease nor did the plaintiffs do anything until some years after their title accrued on the death of their mother, does not support their case. The facts found by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in this case are quite ample to warrant the finding that this lease was made for legal necessity. This case seems to come quite clearly within the observations made by the Judicial Committee in the case of Nanda Lal Dhur Biswas v. Jagat Kishore Acharjya 36 Ind. Cas. 420 : 43 I.A. 249 : 21 C.W.N. 225 : 20 M.L.T. 335 : 31 M.L.J. 563 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 336 : 4 L.W. 458 : 18 Bom. L.R. 868 : 14 A.L.J. 1103 : 24 C.L.J. 487 : 1 P.L.W. 1 : 44 C. 186 : 10 Bur. L.T. 177 (P.C.). The present appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed with costs.