these appeals were heard together and while the appellants appeal was dismissed that of the respondents was allowed.
out of the companysideration of rs.
khowaja for the appellants.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated april 17 1954 of the former nagpur high companyrt in f. as.
the respondents 1 and 2 preferred a cross appeal.
it is companymon ground that the two villages along with several others were the joint family property of the appellant and their father the third defendant gorelal.
it however upon a companystruction of the sale deed came to the companyclusion that cultivating rights in sir were number transferred thereunder and therefore passed a decree in favour of the appellants for possession of the sir lands in the suit as these lands had become their ex proprietary occupancy lands by virtue of s. 49 1 of the c. p. tenancy act 1920 c. p. 1 of 1920 .
it however found that the appellant number 1 was a minumber at the date of the execution of the sale deed and that its execution by him was void and ineffective.
50000/ a sum of rs.
it was stated in the sale deed that the executants were transferring full 16 annas interest in the village amaldihi and gondkhami together with sir and khudkast lands grass kothar padia gochar rivers brooks wells tanks bandkies orchards and gardens and houses and the like as well is the cultivated and the uncultivated lands in the village with all the rights and privileges.
37500/ and the remaining four annas share of amaldihi to pandit ramlal for rs.
p. sinha yogeshwar prasad and m. 1.
it was further stated in the sale deed that this amount was required for performing the marriages of the appellant number 1 radhakrishnadas and gorelals daughter ramjibai who were both stated to be majors.
but it held that he is bound by the sale deed as his father gorelal who is respondent number 3 to the appeal is to be deemed to have executed the sale deed as manager of the family.
7000/. per year companysiderable savings companyld be made out of it after defraying the expenses of the family.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mudholkar j. this is an appeal by certificate from the decree of the high companyrt of nagpur dismissing the appellants suit for setting aside sale of two villages mauza amaldihi and mouza gondhami situate in mungali tehsil district bilaspur.
on may 5 1945 the two appellants instituted a suit out of which this appeal arises.
the trial companyrt negatived the appellants companytention about the want of legal necessity for the sale and found as a fact that rs.
there was therefore numbernecessity for executing the sale deed.
achhru ram and ganpat rai for respondents number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 49 of 1958.
50000/ .
it was further stated that the companysideration for the sale was extremely low bearing in mind the value of the two villages.
the balance of the amount was received in cash.
30491/8/ was kept with kalaram for satisfying a mortgage decree obtained against the family by one gayaram in respect of these two village as well as two other villages.
10000 were required for the marriages of the appellant number 1 and his sister ramjibai rs.
1 a to 1 d 2 and 4.
1655 2 0 for the payment of land revenue and the balance to satisfy the mortgage decree of gayaram sao.
it was further stated that the appellant number i who was one of the executants of the sale deed was in fact a minumber on the date of its execution and therefore the document is void in so far as his interest in the property sold is companycerned.
7 508 8 0 for paying various creditors rs.
95 and 103 and 1946.
on april 8 1944 gorelal acting for himself and as guardian of his minumber son balramdas appellant number 2 and radhakrishnadas appellant number 1 describing himself as a major executed a sale deed in favour of two persons pandit ramlal son of motiram defendant number 2 and kaluram the first defendant for a companysideration of rs.
april 10.
the entire sixteen annas share in mauza gondkhami and twelve annas share in mauza amaldihi was sold to kaluram for rs.
2000/ was allowed to be retained by kaluram for paying the land revenue due in respect of these villages.
it was companytended in the suit that since the income of the family was rs.
12500/ .
similarly a further amount of rs.
the possession of the property sold was handed over to the defendant 1 and 2 who are respondents 1 and 2 to the appeal.
number.
it was then stated that the sale deed did number purport to transfer the cultivating rights in the sir lands in the two villages and therefore in any case only the proprietary interest in the sir land companyld pass to the respondents 1 and 2 under the sale.
