JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.-—In Tehsil and District Una, there is a religious institution known as Thakurdwara Khera Bag. The Thakurdwara is stated to have a large following of Hindu Sanatanists. One Ram Dass was the Mahant (Manager) of this Thakurdwara. 2. Two sale-deeds were executed by the Mahant on July 23, 1955. One of these was Exhibit D-I by which some property belonging to the Thakurdwara was sold in favour of Hem Raj and Arjan Dass. The property consisted of 1/2 share of 124 Kanals 8 Marlas land forming part of Khewat No. 209. The sale was made for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The other sale-deed Exhibit D-2 was executed by the Mahant in favour of Thakur Dass and Amar Nath in respect of 62 Kanals 6 Marlas land forming part of the same Khewat number 209 This sale-deed was also for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. The alienation made through these sale-deeds was assailed by Hazari Lai, claiming to be a worshipper, by instituting suit No. 191 of 1964 at Hoshiarpur. In it, Mahant Ram Dass was impleaded as the first defendant. Thakur Dass and Amar Nath, in whose favour sale-deed Ex. D-2 had been executed, were impleaded as defendants No 2 and 3, while Hem Raj and Arjan Dass vendees in the sale-deed Ex. D-t were impleaded as defendants No. 4 and 5. The suit later came to be transferred to the court of Sub-Judge, Una, and was given a new number as Suit No. 611 of 1969. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff assailed the decree in an appeal. The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1973) was heard and disposed of by the District Judge, Una, on April 27, 1976. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed holding that the suit land belonging to the Thakurdwara had been alienated illegally, without any legal necessity, by the Mahant to defendants-respondents No. 2 to 5. In other words, the alienations were held to be not binding upon the Thakurdwara and the property was directed to be restored to it The vendees, namely, Sarvshri Thakur Dass, Amar Nath, Hem Raj and Arjan Dass have filed this appeal assailing the decree passed by the learned District Judge. 3. The plaintiff came to the court with an allegation that the alienations made through the two sale-deeds Exs. 3. The plaintiff came to the court with an allegation that the alienations made through the two sale-deeds Exs. D-l and D-2 were illegal and not binding on the Thakurdwara, inasmuch as the property had not been sold for any legal necessity. The Mahant, though impleaded as first defendant, did not file any written statement nor contested the suit. He did not appear as a witness either. 4. The defence which the present appellants took, as the defendants in the suit, was that the alienations were made by the Mahant for legal necessity and were valid, 5. In this Court, Shri Chhabil Dass, appearing for the defendants-appellants has assailed the decree of the learned District Judge primarily on the ground that the conclusion that the alienations effected through Exs. D-l and D-2 were not for legal necessity was erroneous both in law as also on facts in the circumstances of the case. According to his submission, the learned Judge did not approach the case from the correct legal perspective. Also, that he had omitted to consider material evidence on the record of the case in arriving at the conclusion that the alienations were not for legal necessity. The trial Court, according to the submission, was justified in its view that the alienations made through Exs. D-l and D-2 were for legal necessity and was founded upon the consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on the record. The learned District Judge had, according to Shri Chhabil Dass, omitted to consider material pieces of evidence. 6. The legal position in regard to the alienation of property given for the maintenance of religious worship and of charities connected with it is not in doubt. As a general rule of Hindu Law the property is inalienable. However, the power of the Mahant to alienate debutter property is analogous to that of a manager for an infant heir. He has no power to alienate debutter property except in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate. In other words, he can alienate the property only for legal necessity. However, the power of the Mahant to alienate debutter property is analogous to that of a manager for an infant heir. He has no power to alienate debutter property except in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate. In other words, he can alienate the property only for legal necessity. Where an alienation is made of debutter property, the burden lies on the alienee to prove either that there was a legal necessity in fact, or that he made proper and bonafide enquiries as to the existence of such necessity and did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of such necessity, {See paragraphs 415 and 4! 5-A of Mulla Principles of Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition). 7. In Biram Prakash and others v- Narendra Dass and others, AIR 1966 SC 1011, the Court said (in paragraph 9) that : "In testing, therefore, the question of legal necessity for the impugned transaction regard must be paid to the actual pressure on the estate, the immediate danger to be averted on the benefit to be conferred upon the trust estate......" The Supreme Court quoted with approval the observations of the Privy Council in Prosunno Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo, (1874-75) 2 Iq 8. In connection with the alienation of joint family property, the Supreme Court observed in Smt. Rani and another v. Smt. Santa Bala Debnath and others, AIR 1971 SC 1028 that: “ Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion : it means pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. The onus of proving legal necessity may be discharged by the alienee by proof of actual necessity or by proof that he made proper and bonafide enquiries about the existence of the necessity......" Also, that: "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......" It also held (in paragraph 7) that the burden of proving that the recital contained in the deed was not correct was upon the plaintiffs. 9. Exhibit D-I mentions the reasons for which the property covered by it was being alienated by the Mahant. 9. Exhibit D-I mentions the reasons for which the property covered by it was being alienated by the Mahant. It recites four reasons, being, (a) the houses of the Thakurdwara were in a dilapidated condition and it was necessary to effect repairs and make new constructions ; (b) there were litigations between the Thakurdwara and occupancy tenants on the land belonging to the Thakurdwara ; (c) repayment of the amount of Takavi loan which had been taken by the Thakurdwara was to be made ; and (d) repayment was also to be made of the amount of two pronotes for Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,800, respectively, under which money had also been borrowed from Purshottam Dass and Sunder Singh, respectively. Further reason mentioned in this deed was about Rs. 300 being needed for the personal expenses of the Mahant. 10. The fact that there was a Takavi loan for a sum of Rs. 2,500, which had been obtained by the Thakurdwara and of which repayment was to be made, was established by producing DW 6 Hans Raj. He proved that under Ex. DW 6/1, a Takavi loan had been obtained on March 12, 1955 amounting to Rs 2,500. Also, that on July 24, 1956 a sum of Rs. 2,646 was deposited towards the repayment of this loan with interest. The pro-note for Rs. 1,800 (Ex. D-6) was proved by DW 3 Sunder Singh. Likewise, the pronote for Rs. 50a (Ex. D-3) was proved by DW 2 Purshottam Dass. 11. In the sale-deed Ex. D-2, the reasons for alienation were mentioned to be repayment of a sum of Rs. 900 towards a pronote of Lala Ram Rakha Mai; a sum of Rs. 3,800 to be spent towards repairs and construction of the buildings of the Thakurdwara and the houses belonging to it; a sum of Rs. 100 to be repaid of the amount of Takavi loan and a further sum of Rs. 2C0 for personal expenses of the Mahant. 12. The pronote for Rs. 900 (Ex. DW 8/1) was proved by its marginal witness DW 8 Ram Lok. 13. The various witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the defendants, namely, DW 1 Milkhi Raj, DW 2 Purshottam Dass, DW 3 Sunder Singh, DW 5 Karta Ram, DW 7 Bishan Dass and DW 9 Thakur Dass, stated to the need for repair and reconstruction of the buildings belonging to the Thakurdwara. 13. The various witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the defendants, namely, DW 1 Milkhi Raj, DW 2 Purshottam Dass, DW 3 Sunder Singh, DW 5 Karta Ram, DW 7 Bishan Dass and DW 9 Thakur Dass, stated to the need for repair and reconstruction of the buildings belonging to the Thakurdwara. They also spoke about the large number of pending cases in connection with which Thakurdwara had to incur expenses. Most of these statements remained unchallenged in cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff. In addition, the draughtsman, Nikka Singh, who had prepared the plans in connection with the repairs and construction of the buildings entered the witness box as DW 4. Exs, D-9 and D-10 are the two judgments dated October 17, 1957 and November 9, 1956 of the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Hoshiarpur and the Financial Commissioner, showing the existence of litigation in which the Thakurdwara was involved both in connection with the temple land and the ejectment of tenants from the land belonging to the Thakurdwara. 14. The trial Court, while coming to the conclusion that the alienations made through Exs. D-l and D-2 were for legal necessity has noticed the aforesaid facts and the evidence in detail in its judgment of June 29, 1973. The discussion in this regard is found under Issue No. 3 in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment. The learned District Judge, however, has, while reversing the conclusion recorded by the trial Judge observed (in paragraph 24 of the judgment) that only Purshottam Dass, creditor was produced and the other two, Sarvshri Ram Rakha Mall and Sunder Singh, had not been produced. Obviously, this statement does not represent facts correctly. Sunder Singh is DW 3. The pronote in favour of Ram Rakha Mai for Rs. 900 referred to in the sale-deed Ex. D-2 was proved by DW 8 Ram Lok as Ex, DW 8/1. 15. The question whether there was legal necessity for a particular alienation made by the Mahant is a mixed question of fact and law. Sunder Singh is DW 3. The pronote in favour of Ram Rakha Mai for Rs. 900 referred to in the sale-deed Ex. D-2 was proved by DW 8 Ram Lok as Ex, DW 8/1. 15. The question whether there was legal necessity for a particular alienation made by the Mahant is a mixed question of fact and law. The inference about the existence of legal necessity from the facts accepted by the lower appellate court would be a question of law which can be looked into by this Court in an appeal under section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, which was part materia with section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to its amendment by Parliament Act 1 of 1976. 16. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the basic submission in this Court has been that the defendants-appellants had not either pleaded or led evidence in proof of the fact that they had made proper and bonafide enquiries about the existence of legal necessity for the alienation of property belonging to the Thakurdwara or that they had done all that was reasonable to satisfy themselves about the existence of such necessity. As such, the view taken by the learned District Judge was correct in law. This submission overlooks that in a case where the alienee pleads that there was a legal necessity for the alienation in fact, it is not necessary for him to plead or establish any proper and bonafide enquiry about the existence of such necessity. In the present case, the alienees, who are defendants-appellants in this Court have pleaded that legal necessity for alienation of the property belonging to the Thakurdwara existed infact when the Mahant made the alienations through two sale-deeds Exs. D-l and D-2. They have also led evidence to establish it. It was, therefore, not necessary for the alienees to plead that any proper and bona fide enquiry was made by them, before purchasing the property through the two sale-deeds, about the existence of legal necessity for the alienation. 17. The submission aforesaid failing, it was urged on behalf of the plaintiff that on facts as well the alienees had failed to establish that there was, in fact, legal necessity for the alienations made through the two sale-deeds. The submission was made in two parts. 17. The submission aforesaid failing, it was urged on behalf of the plaintiff that on facts as well the alienees had failed to establish that there was, in fact, legal necessity for the alienations made through the two sale-deeds. The submission was made in two parts. First, that the defendants had not led evidence to show that they could not raise the amount by alienation of a nature different from the sale of the property belonging to the Thakurdwara. That is, by mortgaging the property belonging to the Thakurdwara. This submission has been met by the learned Counsel for the defendants by pointing out to the Court that most of the land of the Thakurdwara was agricultural in character and was in occupation of tenants. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the various jamabandis, which are on the record of the suit as Exs. P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-6. Since an argument of this nature was not put forward on behalf of the plaintiff before any of the courts below, I permitted Shri Chhabil Dass to point out to the evidence on the record in this respect at the second appellate stage. 18. The second aspect of the submission was that the evidence adduced on behalf of the alienees fell short of establishing that there was, in fact, legal necessity for the alienation even if it was accepted in its entirety. 19. The learned District Judge has dealt with the question of legal necessity in paragraphs 17 to 25 of his judgment. What strikes one, in the first instance, is that the learned Judge was greatly impressed by the fact that the first defendant, namely, the Mahant had not contested the suit nor had he appeared as a witness in it. The absence of the Mahant was given undue importance by the learned Judge. The burden of establishing that there was legal necessity for the alienation of the property covered by the two sale-deeds being upon the alienees themselves, what was important was to examine the evidence adduced by them in support of their plea. Merely because the Mahant did not contest the suit nor appeared as a witness was not enough to cast doubt, as appears to be the view of the learned District Judge, upon the credibility of the evidence produced by the vendees. Merely because the Mahant did not contest the suit nor appeared as a witness was not enough to cast doubt, as appears to be the view of the learned District Judge, upon the credibility of the evidence produced by the vendees. Another factor which seems to have greatly impressed the learned District Judge was the failure of the contesting defendants to affirmatively establish as to how the amount raised by the Mahant by the alienations effected through the two sale-deeds was actually applied. This factor was also not relevant for determining the question whether there was, in fact, legal necessity, at the time when the alienations were actually made, for such alienation. It is settled law that proof of existence of legal necessity does not require proof of actual application of the fund raised by the alienation. 20. In paragraph 182 of Mulla Principles of Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, one finds the law stated, in relation to such an alienation, thus: "In no case, however, is he bound to see that the money paid by him is applied to meet the necessity. The reason is that he can rarely have the means of controlling the actual application, unless he himself enters on the management." 21 It is obvious that in being influenced by the fact that the defendants have not established the actual application of the amount raised by the alienations by the Mahant in determining the question of legal necessity, the learned District Judge misdirected himself in law. 22. The fact that money was needed for payment of antecedents debts or repayment of takavi loan or for repairs and construction of the building belonging to the Thakurdwara or for meeting the expenses in connection with the litigation relating to the property belonging to the Thakurdwara clearly indicated the existence of legal necessity for alienation of the property by the Mahant. Each of these needs is an example of a legal necessity for raising funds for the Thakurdwara albeit by sale of its property. Each of these contingencies represent a pressure on the estate belonging to the Thakurdwara which would justify raising of funds by alienating its property. In the present case, the recitals in the two sale-deeds about the necessity for the alienation are substantially established by the evidence brought on the record of the case by the defendants. 23. Each of these contingencies represent a pressure on the estate belonging to the Thakurdwara which would justify raising of funds by alienating its property. In the present case, the recitals in the two sale-deeds about the necessity for the alienation are substantially established by the evidence brought on the record of the case by the defendants. 23. May be, as canvassed on behalf of the plaintiff, the witnesses have not specified that a sum of Rs. 3,800, mentioned in the sale-deed Ex. D-2 as being needed for repairs and construction of the buildings of the Thakurdwara and the houses belonging to it, was so needed for these purposes in their deposition, yet, it would not, by itself, be enough to take the view that the necessity for raising funds for the purpose was not established by the alienees. The view expressed by the learned District Judge that the assertion of DW 9, Thakur Dass, about the carrying out of construction and repairs of the Thakurdwara buildings including Chaubara and kitchen, being vague, could not be taken as evidence in the eye of law, for establishing need for some money for the purpose, indicates an erroneous approach in law. An alienee is not required, as it were, to establish the need for every penny which is raised by alienation of debutter property before he can be said to have successfully discharged the burden which lies upon him to establish legal necessity for the alienation of the property by the Manager. If the evidence brought on the record by the parties can reasonably lead a prudent person to the conclusion that the existence of the need for repair and construction of the property belonging to the Thakurdwara should, in the circumstances of the case, be accepted as established, to existence of such need will stand proved within the meaning of that term in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, The trial Court was not in error in taking the view that the existence of legal necessity for the purpose of repairs and construction of the building of the Thakurdwara stood proved on the record of the case. In taking a view to the contrary, principally on the ground that the exact amount needed for such purpose was not disclosed in the evidence led on behalf of the alienees, the learned District Judge committed a manifest error of law. In taking a view to the contrary, principally on the ground that the exact amount needed for such purpose was not disclosed in the evidence led on behalf of the alienees, the learned District Judge committed a manifest error of law. More so, when the learned Judge felt that it was also necessary for the defendants to bring evidence on the record about the actual application of the amount towards the purpose. 24. Instances of legal necessity noticed by Mulla in Principles of Hindu Law (Fifteenth Edition) include meeting of legal expenses of litigation, construction of Pacca building for accommodating of visitors to a Math, rebuilding of a dining-hall for feeding visitors, payment of debts and the like. The burden which law casts upon an alienee to establish legal necessity, where he tries to do so as a fact, does not extend to the extent of its establishment by bringing evidence to account for the exact amount for which the alienation is made An alienee would be deemed to have discharged the burden if he is able to bring evidence on the record which may satisfy the Court that the purposes for which money was raised through the alienation in question were, in fact, to be attended to for the benefit of the Thakurdwara and that he could bonafide believe, as a reasonable man. that such need for raising money existed. 25. On the facts, which have been noticed by the learned District Judge in his judgment under appeal, it cannot be said that no reasonable person would take the view that there existed the need for raising money for purposes for which it is said to have been raised in the two sale deeds Ex. D-l and Ex. D-2. On the facts proved on the record of this case, the inference of the learned District Judge that there was no legal necessity for alienating the property through the two sale-deeds is not an inference which can be sustained in law. The view taken by the trial Court in this respect was plainly correct. 26. In conclusion, it must be held that the suit was rightly dismissed by the trial Judge. The appeal deserves to be and is allowed. The decree passed by the learned District Judge is set-aside and that of the trial Court restored. The suit shall stand dismissed. The view taken by the trial Court in this respect was plainly correct. 26. In conclusion, it must be held that the suit was rightly dismissed by the trial Judge. The appeal deserves to be and is allowed. The decree passed by the learned District Judge is set-aside and that of the trial Court restored. The suit shall stand dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court. Appeal allowed. -