JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpai, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-78 passed by V Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri allowing the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1977 by which plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs by the 11 Additional Munsif, Lakhimpur Kheri. 2. The material facts are that plaintiffs, namely, Munna Lal, and Rajesh Kumar filed a suit for possession over a shop in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that the said shop was a part of the joint Hindu Family property of which the common ancestor was Dindayal. He was succeeded by his son Chiraunji Lal who happens to be the father of plaintiffs I and 2 and grandfather of plaintiff 3 and that Chiraunji Lal executed the sale deed of the disputed property in favour of the defendant Smt. Sadar Jamal Abban wife of one Khalilullah Khan on 21-2-69. The sale deed was stated by the plaintiffs to be a void document on the ground that Chiraunji Lal could not exclusively execute, it being a joint Hindu family property and that it also could not he executed since the transfer was riot made for legal necessity and for the benefit of his family. It was also alleged that the consideration for sale was also inadequate. The defendant contested and alleged that the transfer was for legal necessity and that Chiraunji Lal was full owner of the property and he executed the sale deed for valuable consideration and as such plaintiffs were not entitled for possession. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as nine issues. The main issues are to the effect as to whether the property in dispute was joint Hindu Family property or own property of Chiraunji Lal as also to the effect whether the sale was made for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family. An issue to the effect whether the consideration was adequate was also framed as also an issue on the point as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. 3. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence recorded a finding to the effect that the property in dispute was joint Hindu Family property and that it was not for the legal necessity or for the benefit of the family, that the sale deed was executed. 3. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence recorded a finding to the effect that the property in dispute was joint Hindu Family property and that it was not for the legal necessity or for the benefit of the family, that the sale deed was executed. It was also held by the Court that the suit was within time and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief for possession. On these findings the suit was decreed with costs. The defendant appealed and the lower appellate Court after appraising the evidence and considering the submissions of parties' counsel found that the disputed property was not the self acquired property of Chiraunji Lal along with the contentions of the plaintiffs that Chiraunji Lal was riot having the right for transfer of the property all by himself without the consent of the coparceners and that it was not for the legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, if it was found to be the ancestral property. The question of defendant being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration was also considered. The lower appellate Court found that the disputed shop was the joint Hindu family property and concurred with the finding of the trial Court. The second question that was considered by the lower appellate Court was to the effect whether the transfer was made for legal necessity. Disagreeing with the finding of the trial Court the Court found that the sale was for legal necessity and that Chiraunji Lal as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family had full authority to sell the property. In this view of the matter the defendant's appeal was allowed with costs throughout and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. 4. In this appeal filed by the plaintiffs before this Court 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have been taken through oral and documentary evidence, as also the case law on the subject. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the very outset that the sale deed was a void document inasmuch as Chiraunji Lal had no domain over the property in dispute as it was not his self acquired property but Joint Hindu Family property and, therefore, he could not execute a sale deed at all. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the very outset that the sale deed was a void document inasmuch as Chiraunji Lal had no domain over the property in dispute as it was not his self acquired property but Joint Hindu Family property and, therefore, he could not execute a sale deed at all. Learned counsel further contended that it was not for legal necessity inasmuch as neither the sale deed which was the only document which could be taken into consideration on this account detailed it nor could the defendant establish it since the moment it was held that it was the joint Hindu Family property the onus of establishing legal necessity shifted on the defendant. He submitted that Chiraunji Lal was addicted to gambling, drinking and other vices of life and that he had also kept. a concubine Smt. Kokila who was a legally wedded wife of someone else and that he has off springs from this relationship including an unmarried daughter Savitri when he executed the sale deed. The counsel further elaborated that in any case there was no antecedent debt to pay or pious obligation to perform and that the consideration was wholly inadequate. He urged that the lower appellate Court even though recorded a finding to the effect that the property in dispute was the Joint Hindu Family property concurring with the finding of the trial Court fell in error in propounding a thoroughly wrong and untenable proposition of law by holding that the sale deed was for legal necessity on the admitted oral evidence led by the parties. They examined Munna Lal plaintiff as P.W. 1, Jagdish Prasad as P.W. 2, Bhagwati Prasad as P.W. 3, Har Prasad as P.W. 4, Khalilullah as D.W. 1, Habib as D.W. 2 and Azizurahman Khan as D.W. 3 and the only material document the sale deed dated 21-2-1969 Ext. Al. Learned counsel pointed out that there is nothing in the testimony of P.W. 1 to lead to this conclusion and sale deed Ext. A-1 also does not indicate this. Al. Learned counsel pointed out that there is nothing in the testimony of P.W. 1 to lead to this conclusion and sale deed Ext. A-1 also does not indicate this. A perusal of the lower appellate Court's judgment indicates that the Court relied on the cross-examination of P.W. I who was defendant No. 1 to the effect that Chiraunji Lal had sold two shops in the year 1957 for the marriage of his daughter that is Munna Lal's sister and that another shop was sold by him previously to this marriage in 1952 and subsequent to it executed sale of the shop in dispute on 21-2-1969 and subsequent to it Ghiraunji Lal died on 16-2-1976 and thereafter the suit was instituted on 12-4-76. As pointed out by the learned counsel the earlier sale was for the marriage of the daughter of Chiraunji Lal who was the wife (sister ?) of plaintiffs 1 and 2 from Chiraunji Lal's lawfully wedded wife while the sale made in 1969 being stated to be for the marriage of Savitri Devi, his concubine, Smt. Kokila's daughter. Strangely the trial Court did not record any finding to the effect whether Savitri Devi was the daughter of Chiraunji Lal and sister of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and as to whether Smt. Kokila was wedded wife of Chiraunji Lai. This was brushed aside by the lower appellate Court on the ground that it was a controversial point as to whether Savitri Devi was the daughter of Chiraunji Lal and also as to whether Sint. Kokila was wedded wife of Chiraunji Lal and the Court solely relied on the recital of the sale deed to the effect waste adai quarz va digar zarooriyat. This in itself was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants not sufficient recital to lead to the conclusion that the property was sold for legal necessity. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Rani v. Sint. Santabala Debnath, AIR 1971 SC 1028 . in which it was held : "Recitals in a deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove legal necessity. The recitals are, however, admissible in evidence their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into. Santabala Debnath, AIR 1971 SC 1028 . in which it was held : "Recitals in a deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove legal necessity. The recitals are, however, admissible in evidence their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into. The recitals may be used to corroborate other evidence of the existence of legal necessity." Learned counsel submitted that these recitals in themselves do not constitute legal necessity and they could not be accepted by the Court and a finding recorded thereon since it was clear that Chiraunji Lal had sold the property in dispute for the marriage of Savitri Devi and it not having been held and decided as to whether Savitri Devi was the offspring of lawfully wedded wife or from Smt. Kokila his concubine. He submitted that the recital as such could not stand. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that Munna Lal's admission, as pointed out earlier, supported the recital in the sale deed and the finding recorded by the trial Court that the sale was for legal necessity is fully satisfied. As detailed hereinabove Munna Lai's cross- examination does not in any way support the recital since Munna Lal stated truth when he said that the earlier shop was sold for the marriage of his sister and the disputed sale was made for the marriage of Savitri Devi who was not his sister and was the offspring of Chiraunji Lal from Smt. Kokila, his concubine and that as such it could not constitute legal necessity. It has also come in the cross-examination of D.W. 1 that Chiraunji Lal had been.challenged in many cases of dacoity and gambling etcetra and it supports the contentions of paragraph 6 of the plaint which would not be negatived and paras 13 and 14 of the written statement to which a replication was also filed by the plaintiffs in which paragraph 16 categorically denied the Governments of the written statements and other contents of the plaint. In this view of the matter I have no hesitation in holding that the sale was not for legal necessity. Similarly nothing to indicate that there was any antecedent debt to pay or pious obligation necessitating sale or any legal necessity to warrant sale. The transaction cannot be justified. 6. In this view of the matter I have no hesitation in holding that the sale was not for legal necessity. Similarly nothing to indicate that there was any antecedent debt to pay or pious obligation necessitating sale or any legal necessity to warrant sale. The transaction cannot be justified. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit was filed after the death of Chiraunji Lal and that the plaintiff had no right to do it and that the suit was not maintainable. This contention was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The trial Court has rightly held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that it could be filed after the death of Chiraunji Lal. It may be mentioned that under Hindu Law the traditions and practices in Hindu families are entirely different and it has been found more often than not that sons and grandsons,. howsoever grown up can hardly raise their little finger much less open their tongue against the action of their father or grand father; erroneous and illegal though it may be. On this account and on application of law also I hold that the suit was within time. The other submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that legal necessity was not sufficient ground in itself to warrant disposal of property by karta of a joint Hindu family property unless the sale was executed for adequate consideration and any legal necessity without adequate consideration could not validate a sale deed. He submitted that in the instant case the only evidence available as adduced by the defendant indicating consideration paid for sale was Rs. 400/- as is apparent from para 8 of the plaint and further substantiated from para 14 of the written statement coupled with the testimony of Khalilullah Khan D.W. 1. The defendant has failed to adduce any evidence to the effect that the consideration was adequate and the learned counsel for the respondent has not been in a position to point out any such evidence. The defendant has failed to adduce any evidence to the effect that the consideration was adequate and the learned counsel for the respondent has not been in a position to point out any such evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants also in this regard relied on a decision of this Court in Dudh Nath v. Sat Narain Ram, AIR 1966 All 315 , wherein their Lordships have held after taking into account a large number of precedents of the Privy Council and other Courts as follows : "........that in order to uphold an alienation of a Joint Hindu Family property by the father or the Manager, it is not only necessary to prove that there was legal necessity, but also that the father or the manager acted like a prudent man and did not sacrifice the property for inadequate consideration." Accordingly it is held that the consideration was inadequate and that the sale deed could not be executed by Chiraunji Lal and was void. The Full Bench answered the question referred to by an Hon'ble Judge of the Court with the undernoted answer : .......... that an alienation of ancestral joint family property by a Hindu father is not binding on his son if it was made for inadequate consideration, even though there was legal necessity....... 7. The only other contention by the learned counsel for the respondent was that in any view of the matter the second appeal involves appraisal of evidence by the lower appellate Court and that this Court would not substitute its own findings in place of the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court. 8. I have considered this submission, with respect it deserves, and I am of the view that no appraisal of evidence is being made by this Court in this second appeal. The Court has only relied on the judgment of the lower appellate Court in wrongly interpreting the well established principles of Hindu Law and also in shifting the burden of proof on the plaintiffs when actually it lay on the defendant and the defendant's evidence by her most authentic and reliable witness Khalilullah Khan, her own husband, did not establish that there was any legal necessity and that the consideration was inadequate after a finding being recorded that the property was a joint Hindu family property. This is also apparent from pleadings of the parties indicated above. This is also apparent from pleadings of the parties indicated above. The submission is without any force and is rejected. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The judgment and decree dated 28-2-78 passed by V Additional District Judge, Kheri allowing the defendants appeal is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1977 by which plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs by the II Additional Munsif, Lakhimpurkheri is affirmed and restored.