JUDGMENT : DALAL, J.:— On a suit by a reversioner a sale by a Hindu widow was set aside on condition of the reversioner paying to the vendee the amount of the consideration, which was proved to have been required by the widow for legal necessity. The consideration was Rs. 575 and the lower appellate court held that out of that sum Rs. 504/8/0 was proved to be for legal necessity. The defendant-vendee has appealed. His learned counsel relied on the Full Bench ruling oft this Court in the case of Lal Bahadur Lal v. Kamleshar Nath, [1926] 24 A.L.J.R., 52., and argued that as the sum not required for legal necessity was small compared to the rest of the consideration, the sale should not have been set aside. We agree with this view particularly when the first court has held that the entire sum was required for legal necessity, and the lower appellate court also has admitted that the widow was in straitened circumstances at the time of the execution of the sale-deed, and possibly required some money for her own maintenance. The learned counsel for the respondents desired us to make an arithmetical calculation, and urged that a sale can be confirmed only when the portion not proved to be for legal necessity was less than 1/10th of the sale consideration. No such rule has been observed either in this Court of by the Privy Council. In the case of Daulat v. Sankatha Prasad, [1925] 23 A.L.J.R., 55., two learned Judges of this Court have quoted a ruling of the Privy Council in which a sale by a widow was upheld, where the sale consideration was Rs. 4,600, and legal necessity for a sum of Rs. 711 was not proved. We think that the present is a case where the sale should be upheld. 2. We set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, restore the decree of the trial court, and dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit with costs in all courts. 3. Appeal allowed.