JUDGMENT (D.S. Bajpai, J.) 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal Against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1978 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sitapur allowing Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1976 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1976 passed in Original Suit No. 210 of 1971 by which the plaintiffappellant's suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendantrespondents 1 to 3 from taking possession of the land in dispute was decreed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case were that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 3 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed land shown by letters ABCD in the plan attached with the plaint, situate in Mohalla Vijai Luxmi Nagar, Sitapur either by digging foundation or by making any constructions thereon in any manner whatsoever, on the allegation that the father of the plaintiff, Gur Prasad, had purchased plot No. 236 as Karta of the H.U.F. from Srimati Prem Lata and Virendra Nath Saxena by a registered saledeed on 17.12.1958. It was averred that Sri Gur Prasad retired from collectorate, Sitapur where he was serving as an official and that he had no personal assets of his own to purchase the property and the full consideration of the saledeed was paid from the joint ancestral family income as also from the contribution of the plaintiff to the extent of half the amount since the plaintiff had already steeled in legal practice. As such it was asserted that it was a joint family property on which a building was constructed but a portion of the said plot towards west was left as open land for beneficial enjoyment in the house. The plaintiff's said father, Gur Prasad, died some time in 1966 during the pendency of the suit. It was further alleged that the defendants 1 to 3 without any right and title were trying to trespass on the said vacant land and had dug foundation, apparently to construct a building and on being checked the defendant no. 1, Ramanand, told the plaintiff that he had got a saledeed executed in favour of the defendant no. 3 from the plaintiff's said father Gur Prasad. It was under these circumstances that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. 1, Ramanand, told the plaintiff that he had got a saledeed executed in favour of the defendant no. 3 from the plaintiff's said father Gur Prasad. It was under these circumstances that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The three original defendants in the suit were Ramanand, Jagdish Prasad and Srimati Sushila Devi respectively but subsequently on the death of Gur Prasad an application (33 Ga2) was filed by the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 10 were directed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit and filed a joint writtenstatement alleging, inter alia, that the suit was undervalued and the court fee paid was insufficient and the suit was bad for nonjoinder of the heirs of the deceased Gur Prasad. The defendants also averred that the sale in favour of the defendant No. 3 was for a consideration of Rs. 3000 and that the valuation at the time of filing of the written statement was not less than Rs.8000, A defence was taken that Gur Prasad having served in the Collectorate for a longtime he purchased plot No. 236 from his own Savings, and he had no ancestral property to purchase the land from the savings of the said property. It was further asserted that the defendant no. 3 was in possession since the date of sale and hence the suit for permanent injunction, was not tenable and that the plaintiff could not have any easementary right without it being, attached to his own land and as such the plaintiff had no right to file the suit. An additional written statement was also filed in which it was alleged that the sale could not be declared null and void on the ground of inadequate consideration and because on court fee had been paid for cancellation, of the saledeed the plea raised in para 7 (b) wascontradictory to the original pleading, of the plaintiff since no adverse possession could be claimed by a person on his own property. On pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as 11 issues mentioned hereunder: 1. Whether the valuation as given in plaint is incorrect? If so its effect? 2. Whether court fee paid is insufficient? 3. On pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as 11 issues mentioned hereunder: 1. Whether the valuation as given in plaint is incorrect? If so its effect? 2. Whether court fee paid is insufficient? 3. Whether Sri Gur Prasad had purchased the Plot No. 236 as the Karta of a joint Hindu family and the property purchased was a Joint Hindu family property? 4. Whether defendant no. 3 purchased the land in suit (ABCD in map 44 c/4) from Sri Gur Prasad? 5. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land ABCD and if not whether suit is maintainable? 6. If the property sold by Sri Gur Prasad to defendant no. 3 was a joint Hindu family property and whether plaintiffs is bound by the said saledeed? 7. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 8. Whether suit is undervalued and court fee paid is insufficient after amended plaint? 9. Whether the plaintiff has become full owner by adverse possession as alleged? 10. Whether the consideration for salt was inadequate as alleged? 11. Whether the plaintiff cannot claim any right by adverse possession as alleged? 2. The learned Munsif by his order dated 13.4.74 decided issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative and gave the plaintiff an opportunity to make good the deficiency in the court fee by 31.5.1974, The plaintiff complied with the said order and the application for amendment of the plaint, paper no. 48 C2, was allowed on 31.5.1974. Similarly issue no. 8 was decided as a preliminary issue and answered in negative by order of the trial court dated 14,1.1974. In as far as issue no. 4 is concerned finding in the affirmative was returned to the effect that Gur Prasad had executed the saledeed dated 11.7.1962 which had been admitted by the plaintiff and proved by the defendant no, 3 3. The learned Munsif considered issues 5, 9 and 11 together and I to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession over the plot in dispute and therefore suit for mere injunction was maintainable. He further recorded a finding that the plaintiff had become full owner of the plot in dispute by adverse possession and that he had a right to claim adverse possession and on these findings issues 5 and 9 were decided in favour of the plaintiff |n the affirmative and issue no. He further recorded a finding that the plaintiff had become full owner of the plot in dispute by adverse possession and that he had a right to claim adverse possession and on these findings issues 5 and 9 were decided in favour of the plaintiff |n the affirmative and issue no. 11 was decided in negative against the defendants. On issues 3, 6 and 10 the trial court after examining evidence and considering the case law cited before him held that plot no. 236 which was the subject matter of the dispute was purchased by Gur Prasad as 'Karta' of the Joint Hindu family and it was purchased from the joint family funds for which the plaintiff had also contributed a sum of Rs. 1.500 and that the property sold to the defendant no. 3 by Gur Prasad being joint Hindu family property the plaintiff was not bound by the said saledeed executed in 1973 (sic) which was held to be void abinitio. The trial court further held that the consideration for sale was not inadequate. With these findings issues 3, 6 and 10 were decided against the defendants. The suit was decreed with casts on these findings. 4. Aggrieved the defendants 1 to 3 filed Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1976 before the District Judge which was decided by the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1978 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sitapur. The learned lower appellate court heard and decided the appeal on consideration of three points urged before him. (i) whether the family of Gur Prasad and his sons was joint Hindu family at the relevant period i.e. between 1958 to 1963; and whether the plot in dispute was a joint Hindu family property acquired from the income of the ancestral property as also contribution of the plaintiff as a member of the joint Hindu family; (ii) whether the transfer by sale deed was for legal necessity in case the property in question was found to be joint Hindu family property; and (iii) whether the plaintiff acquired rights through adverse possession. 5. The learned lower appellate court upset the findings recorded by the trial court on the last point by holding that the plaintiff had not become owner of the disputed land through adverse possession which was neither established nor was it maintainable. As regards point no. 5. The learned lower appellate court upset the findings recorded by the trial court on the last point by holding that the plaintiff had not become owner of the disputed land through adverse possession which was neither established nor was it maintainable. As regards point no. 1 the learned lower appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court that the plot in question was a joint Hindu family property of which Gur Prasad was Karta but on point no. 2 the learned lower appellate court held that the sale was for legal necessity and was binding on the family members and that as such the sale was valid and enforceable. The appeal was as such allowed with costs. 6. In this second appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that the lower appellate court having held that the disputed plot of land was ancestral joint Hindu family property and that the plaintiff having made contribution for purchase as also towards construction of the house thereon the saledeed executed by Gur Prasad without consent of other major members of the family and in particular the plaintiff could not be a valid saledeed transferring any right or interest to the purchaser. It is not disputed that the plaintiff came to know about the registered saledeed of 17.12.1958 only when the defendants 1 to 3 had started digging of the land transferred by the saledeed for laying down foundation and constructing a building thereon and that gave rise to the cause of action for filing of the suit. Apparently since the finding of the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff came to know about the transfer only at that stage having been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court we can reach no other conclusion other than that the plaintiff who was an adult male member of the joint Hindu family and who had also made contribution for acquisition of the said property was not in the know of the saledeed being executed by his father Gur Prasad much less having been consulted by his father in executing the saledeed. A decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Balmukund v. Kamla Wati and others ( AIR 1964 SC 1385 ) while relying on observations of Harries C.J. in the case of Sital Prasad v. Ajablal Mander (AIR 1939 Pat. 370) which laid down the reasons for imposing certain restrictions on the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family in the following terms: ......the karta of a joint Hindu family being merely a manager and not an absolute owner, the Hindu law has, like other systems of law, placed certain limitations upon his power to alienate property which is owned by the joint family. The Hindu law givers, however, could not have intended to impose any such restriction on his power as would virtually disqualify him from doing anything to improve the conditions of the family. The only reasonable limitation which can be imposed on the karta is that he must act with prudence, and prudence implies caution as well as foresight and excludes hasty, reckless and arbitrary conduct. held : These observations make it clear that where adult members are in existence the judgment is to be not that of the Manager of the family alone but that of all the adult members of the family including the manager. 7. There is no indication much less a finding to the effect recorded by either of the two courts below that while the land was being transferred the plaintiff was taken into confidence much less being a consenting party to the said transfer. The plea to the effect that having been held that the property in dispute was a joint Hindu family properly it was incumbent for execution of a valid saledeed to obtain the consent of the plaintiff by Sri Gur Prasad, is well founded and the saledeed cannot be upheld to be a valid document transferring rights in the said land in favour of the contesting defendants 1 to 3. Connected with this plea is the plea as to whether the transfer was for legal necessity or not. Connected with this plea is the plea as to whether the transfer was for legal necessity or not. A full bench decision of this Court in re Jagat Narain and another v. Mathura Das and others reported in AIR 1928 Allahabad, page 454 has stated broad principles for determination of legal necessity as one of the elements being justification of the transaction to be found in 'benefit of the estate' and that the degree of prudence which a prudent man would exercise with this knowledge available to him and that the transaction has to be judged not by its results but by what would have been expected to be its result and the responsibility invested on the manager of the joint Hindu family is much more than the one which would be exercised by a prudent man. In the case in hand all that has been stated by way of recital in the saledeed is that the money was needed .It is not disputed that the timber toll was opened as a business by Sri Gur Prasad and that the said business was not coming down in the hinds of Sri Gur Prasad as a Karta of the joint Hindu family from his ancestors. This being so it would only be deemed to be at the most, as emerges from the pleadings of the parties, a family business and any investment made for improvement of the say business by sale of a joint Hindu family property would not be deemed to be an investment for the benefit of the Joint Hindu family, as held by a full bench of, this Court in. the case of Ram Nath and another v. Chiranji Lal and another, reported in ILR 57 Allahabad, page 57 where Sir Shah Mohammad Sulaiman C. J. (as he then was), after reviewing a large number of decisions held ; ... ...As a result of their Lordships' pronouncement, it is now finally settled that the mere fact that money has been required for a business newly started by a manager or the father is not in itself' sufficient to justify an alienation of the family property. In the case in hand there is evidence to the effect that the business was a personal business of Sri Gur Prasad whatever might be his intention in carrying out the said business. In the case in hand there is evidence to the effect that the business was a personal business of Sri Gur Prasad whatever might be his intention in carrying out the said business. This being so I have no hesitation in holding that the alienation was neither for legal necessity nor could it be binding on the family members and the finding to the contrary returned on point no. 2 by the learned lower appellate court deserves to be set aside and the judgment of the trial court upheld in its totality. 8. The learned counsel for the defendants respondents contended that the findings of the court below was justified on the basis of the facts and circumstances as also on the basis of the evidence on record and that this court would not interfere in the judgment of the lower appellate court. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made. After going through the record of the case and for reasons set forth hereinabove I am not inclined to hold that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendants respondents deserve to be sustained. 9. In the result the second appeal is hereby allowed with costs throughout, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court passed in Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1976 dated 19.1.1978 are hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court in Original Suit No. 210 of 1971 are hereby affirmed. (Appeal allowed)