(The judgment of the Allahabad High Court delivered by Lindsay and Sulai man, JJ., was as follows.) The property in dispute in this case consists of a three-biswa odd share in three villages, Kairgarh, Nagla Himmat and Nagla Khayatan, and belonged to one Baldeo Singh who died in the year 1898. According to the pedigree set out in the plaint, Baldeo Singh had a son Bha rat Singh, who, it is admitted, prede ceased him. When Baldeo Singh died he was suc ceeded by his widow, Mt. Phula Kun war who remained in possession of his estate till her death in January 1912. At the time she died the next heir under the Hindu law was Bhanwar Singh alias Khairati Singh, the son of Baldeo' daughter. He was impleaded in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen as defendant 8. On the 19th January 1903 Mt. Phula Kunwar sold the property in suit for Rs. 19,000 to three persons : Sah Tejpal, Sah Ram Chandra, and Sah Piare Lal who are now represented by the defen dants 1 to 6. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 in the suit are sons of Maharaj Singh who was a nephew of Baldeo Singh, and who, it is said, survived Mt. Phula Kunwar by a few days. These plaintiffs, claiming to be the right heirs to the property along with another brother of theirs named Chandra Bhan Singh (impleaded as de fendant 7) have brought this suit for the purpose of avoiding the sale made by Phula Kunwar in 1903. They have sold their interest in the property in dispute to the sixth plaintiff Sah Moji Ram. The case for the plaintiffs was that Phula Kunwar had exceeded her powers as a female heir and had conveyed away the property without any necessity, and that the transfer so made was as against them altogether null and void. In order to establish their right to maintain the suit in the presence of Bhanwar Singh, Baldeo' daughter' son (defendant 7), they pleaded in para. 6 of the plaint that Tinder a custom prevailing in the clan of Chauhan Thakurs to which Bal deo Singh belonged, daughters and sons are excluded from inheritance. It was further alleged that this custom obtained in Baldeo Singh' family. In para. 6 of the plaint that Tinder a custom prevailing in the clan of Chauhan Thakurs to which Bal deo Singh belonged, daughters and sons are excluded from inheritance. It was further alleged that this custom obtained in Baldeo Singh' family. In para. 7 of the plaint it was alleged that Bhanwar Singh, defendant 7, was, in consequence of the custom, no heir to Baldeo Singh, and it was further stated that on the 13th October 1916, Bhanwar Singh had executed a document disclaim ing any right to inherit, and relinquish ing his rights in the property (if he had any) in order to avoid disputes. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed to be put into possession of the property by avoidance of the sale, subject to the rights of defendant 7, Chandra Bhan Singh the remaining son of Maharaj, Singh, who had not joined as a plaintiff and had not conveyed his interest in the property to the plaintiff 6, Sah Moji Lal. The first six defendants, the representatives of Phula Kunwar' vendees defended the suit on various pleas. We need only notice here that they denied the custom set up in the plaint. They also denied the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit ; and a further plea was that the sale by Phula Kunwar was justified on the ground of legal necessity and that the property had been sold for its fall value. Chandra Bhan Singh, the defendant 7 filed no defence. Bhanwar Singh, defendant 8, put in a written statement admitting all the facts alleged in the plaint and de claring that he had no rights in the pro perty in suit, which he said, belonged to the plaintiffs. He admitted execution of the deed of relinquishment dated the 13th October 1916, and prayed to be dis charged from the suit on the ground that he had no interest in the litigation. The Subordinate Judge came to no find ing on the issue raised as to the custom set up by the plaintiffs, considering that in view of what he was deciding on the other issues no such finding was re quired. He upheld the right of the plaintiffs to sue on the ground that Bhanwar Singh had renounced his title in their favour by execution of the document of the 13th October 1916. He upheld the right of the plaintiffs to sue on the ground that Bhanwar Singh had renounced his title in their favour by execution of the document of the 13th October 1916. He was of opinion that full value had been paid for the property when it was sold by Phula Kunwar. He further upheld that the representatives of Phula Kunwar, vendees, had succeeded in proving that the debts in lieu of which the property was sold were bind ing to the extent of Rs. 17,378-4-0, and he, therefore, gave the plaintiffs a decree for possession subject to their paying this sum into Court within three months from the date of the decree. The defendants have appealed and the main contentions here have been : (1) that the plaintiffs had no right of suit ; and (2) that the Court below should have affirmed the sale on the ground that legal necessity had been proved in res pect of the entire consideration of Rs. 19,000. The plaintiffs-respondents have filed cross-objections claiming that they were not liable to pay any of the sums de clared by the Subordinate Judge to be binding upon them. They also object to the finding that they were not entitled to mesne profits. (The judgment here discussed other points not material for this report and then discussing about the amount of consideration which was found for necessity proceeded.) We agree accordingly, with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that legal necessity for the sale was established to the extent of Rs. 17,378-4-0 and no more. As to the point raised in the peti tion by way of cross-objection that the Court below did not deal properly with the plaintiff' claim for mesne profits it is sufficient for us to say that we agree with the Judge' reasons for not making any order in respect of these profits. One other point only calls for notice. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that in view of the findings the decree is not drawn in proper form. The decree as framed, is one for possession on pay ment by the plaintiffs within three months of the above-mentioned sum of Rs. 17,378-4-0. In default it is proved that the suit shall stand dismissed with costs. The suggestion is that having regard to the small amount, viz. Rs. The decree as framed, is one for possession on pay ment by the plaintiffs within three months of the above-mentioned sum of Rs. 17,378-4-0. In default it is proved that the suit shall stand dismissed with costs. The suggestion is that having regard to the small amount, viz. Rs. 1,600 in respect of which it was found that legal necessity had not been proved, and in view of the proportion this sum bears to the total amount of the consi deration, it would have been proper to confirm the sale in toto subject to pay ment to the plaintiffs of the Rs. 1600 odd. "But we are satisfied that the decree is in proper form and we should not have interfered with it on that ground. It may be that in cases where peculiar equities arise, it would be expedient to follow the course suggested, but we are satisfied that there are no considerations of this nature to be taken into account here. For the reasons already given we hold that the appeal succeeds and it is decreed accordingly. The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs to defendants 1 to 6 in both Courts, including in this Court fees on the higher scale. The cross-objections fail and are dis missed with costs which will also include fees on the higher scale. (The judgment of the Privy Council was as follows), Solicitors for Appellants, H.S.L. Polak; Solicitors for Respondents, Douglae Grant and Dold. Lord Blanesburgh. - It appearing to the Board that this case comes within the principles laid down by the Board in the cases of Sri Krishn Das v. Nathu Ram AIR 1927 P. C. 37 : 49 All. 149 : 54 I. A. 79 and Niamat Rai v. Din Dayal AIR 1927 P. C. 121 : 54 I. A. 211, their Lordships, with out taking into consideration the facts of the case, will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.