JUDGMENT N.M. GOLVALKER, J. 1. This first appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the suit properties on the footing that they originally belonged to her father one Dayaram. According to the plaintiff, some time after the death of Dayaram in 1948 his widow Mst. Sukhia sold 8.97 acres of occupancy land to Lachhman by a registered sale deed dated 6th February 1950 for a consideration of Rs. 800; that there was no legal necessity at all for this sale; that on the same day Mst. Sukhia gifted away 9.41 acres of occupancy land to Mst. Ramhulla; and that after the death of Mst. Sukhia in 1950 Mst. Ramhulla took possession of the remaining property left behind by Mst. Sukhia. The appellant Mst. Ramhulla is a neice of the plaintiff being her sister Jodhkunwar's daughter. The plaintiff claimed moveable and immoveable property of Dayaram as the next reversioner after the death of his widow Sukhia. 2. The plea of the defendants was that after the death of Dayaram the condition of agricultural property deteriorated and its income fell down; that Sukhia, therefore, needed money to maintain herself and for performing marriage of the appellant Mst. Ramhulla and for purchasing a pair of bullocks, and that for this purpose she had to incur a debt, and sale in favour of the appellant Lachhman was effected in order to pay off this debt and was thus for legal necessity. It was further averred by the defendants that Dayaram desired that his property should go to his second daughter Jodhkunwar and that she should reside with him; that, therefore, he made so offer to the plaintiff that the should forego her interest in the property on the condition of his purchasing some property for her and her husband; that this offer was accepted by the plaintiff and accordingly she received some property from Dayaram; that having accepted this offer of Dayaram the plaintiff could not now claim any property left by Dayaram; that it was in pursuance of this arrangement made by Dayaram that Sukhia made gift of the lands in question to Mst. Ramhulla with the full consent and approval of the plaintiff; that on the death of Sukhia, disputes again arose between the plaintiff and Mst. Ramhulla with the full consent and approval of the plaintiff; that on the death of Sukhia, disputes again arose between the plaintiff and Mst. Ramhulla and mediators were called to settle the dispute, that ultimately the dispute was amicably settled and the plaintiff agreed to take half of the occupancy land gifted by Sukhia to Mst. Ramhulla and some moveable property in full settlement of her claim on the property of Dayaram; and that according to this settlement the plaintiff could not now lay any claim on the properties in suit. 3. The learned Civil Judge, First Class Raipur, who tried the suit, held that the sale in favour of the appellant Lachhman was not supported by any legal necessity; that the arrangement alleged to have been made by Dayaram to benefit the plaintiff and her sister Mst. Jodhkunwar was not proved: that there was a settlement between the parties in regard to the land gifted away by Mst. Sukhia to Mst. Ramhula and some moveable property of Dayaram; and that according to this settlement, which was binding on the parties half of the gifted land was given in possession of the plaintiff. 4. On these findings, the plaintiff's claim for possession of the land sold to the appellant Lachhman and of sir-land in suit was decreed. The plaintiff was also declared to be entitled to retain possession of the occupancy land which was delivered to her under the settlement effected after the death of Mst. Sukhia. The rest of her claim was dismissed. The defendants have now preferred this appeal. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objection for her claim in regard to the entire occupancy land gifted to Mst. Ramhula being decreed. 5. The counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence on record and contended that it amply established the fact that the sale in favour of the appellant Lachhman was for legal necessity and that the occupancy land was gifted away to Mst. Ramhula pursuant to the arrangement made by Dayaram during his life-time for benefiting the plaintiff and Mst. Jodhkunwar. We are unable to accept this contention. 6. Taking first the sale of occupancy land in favour of the appellant Lachhman, the evidence on record does not at all establish that it was effected for legal necessity. According to the defendants, the land was sold for pacing off a debt of Rs. 800/- which Mst. Jodhkunwar. We are unable to accept this contention. 6. Taking first the sale of occupancy land in favour of the appellant Lachhman, the evidence on record does not at all establish that it was effected for legal necessity. According to the defendants, the land was sold for pacing off a debt of Rs. 800/- which Mst. Sukhia had incurred for maintaining herself and for performing marriage of the appellant Mst. Ramhula and for purchasing a pair of bullocks. The sale-deed, which was executed in favour of Lachhman, makes no mention whatsoever of any money being required for celebrating the marriage of the appellant Ramhula. The depositions of the witnesses Parasram and Madan, who stated that they had given loans to Mst. Sukhia without taking any writing from her and without charging any interest, are difficult of acceptance. There is nothing to show that income from the property which Dayaram left was not sufficient for Sukhia's own maintenance and for other purposes such as purchasing a pair of bullocks or performing marriage of her grand-daughter. On the other hand, it is in evidence that the property fetched good income. Then again, if Mst. Sukhia alienated the property for the purpose of getting Mst. Ramhula married, that purpose cannot be regarded as a legal necessity, for there is no obligation under the Hindu law at all on a woman to get her grand-daughter married. In Narainbati vs. Ramdhari Singh 20 C.W. 734 it was held that a grand mother cannot alienate the property for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of her daughter's daughter for there is no duty at all on her to get her grand-daughter married, There is no evidence to support the suggestion that the plaintiff consented to this sale. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the sale in favour of the appellant was not supported by legal necessity. 7. As to the appellant Mst. Ramhulla's claim to the property of Dayaram, it is based solely on the allegation that during his lifetime Dayaram made an arrangement where under he purchased some property for the plaintiff and her husband on the condition of her giving up her claim to his property and Mst. Ramhulla's mother Jodhkunwar getting all the property of Dayaram; and that it was in accordance with this arrangement that Mst. Sukhia made a gift of occupancy land to Mst. Ramhulla. Ramhulla's mother Jodhkunwar getting all the property of Dayaram; and that it was in accordance with this arrangement that Mst. Sukhia made a gift of occupancy land to Mst. Ramhulla. But there is not an iota of evidence to establish this alleged arrangement by Dayaram. The only circumstances relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that there was such an arrangement are that the plaintiff and her husband got some property from Dayaram and that they shifted to the village where this property was situated and that Jodhkunwar and her husband came to reside with Dayaram. These circumstances are no proof of the arrangement pleaded by the defendants. It is significant that in the gift-deed executed by Mst. Sukhia in favour of Mst. Ramhulla there is no mention whatsoever of the deed being executed pursuant to this arrangement. If Dayaram did make such an arrangement and the gift-deed was a consequence of that, then one would have expected a mention of the arrangement in the gift-deed. No explanation is forthcoming as to why, if Dayaram did really intend to benefit the appellant Ramhulla's mother Jodhkunwar in the manner alleged by the defendants, he did not himself complete the arrangement during his lifetime. On this evidence, it is impossible to hold that under a family arrangement made by Dayaram the plaintiff waived all her claim to Dayaram's property. 8. We also do not see any ground to differ from the learned trial judge's appreciation of evidence bearing on the question of the settlement that took place between the parties after the death of Mst. Sukhia. That evidence amply establishes the fact that after the death of Mst. Sukhia disputes arose between the parties and ultimately a settlement was arrived at in regard lo moveable property of Dayaram and the occupancy land covered by the gift-deed. The settlement did not in any way affect other property of Dayaram. According to that settlement, the plaintiff accepted some moveable property of Dayaram and 41/2 acres out of that occupancy land which had been gifted by Mst. Sukhia to Mst. Ramhulla. That settlement is binding both on the appellant Mst. Ramhulla as well as the plaintiff and in consonance with it the appellant Mst. Ramhula is not entitled to the sir-lands and the plaintiff is also not entitled to get the entire occupancy land which Mst. Sukhia had gifted to Mst. Sukhia to Mst. Ramhulla. That settlement is binding both on the appellant Mst. Ramhulla as well as the plaintiff and in consonance with it the appellant Mst. Ramhula is not entitled to the sir-lands and the plaintiff is also not entitled to get the entire occupancy land which Mst. Sukhia had gifted to Mst. Ramhula. 9. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge was right in the conclusion that he reached. The result is that that both the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's cross-objections are dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed