JUDGMENT D.P. Sood, J. — On 17-2-1965 Shri Nidha sold the Suit land to Smt. Gitan Devi, defendant No. I for a consideration of Rs. 1,200 vide registered sale-deed of even date. The vendors sons have brought action for the usual declaration that the sale in question shall not effect their rights to succession to the estate after the death of their father. 2. The case set up by the respondents, as plaintiffs, in the trial Court is that their father is addicted to alcohol and had been spoiling his property in reckless manner despite the fact that there was no legal necessity to sell the property as such the sale referred to above is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 controverted these facts and maintained that the sale was for legal necessity and out of consideration of Rs 1,200, Rs 630 was to be paid on account of mortgage and Rs. 390 was paid before the Sub-Registrar and Rs. 180 was spent for the registration She also denied that defendant No. 2 the vendor is addicted to drinking and the sale consideration has not been paid Maintainability of the suit on the ground of collusiveness has also been questioned by her. 3. The factum of the suit land measuring 3 kanals 8 marlas i.e. l/3rd shere of the land contained in khata khatoni No 106/140 khasra No. 863 situate in Tika and Mauza Bhadiara Tehsil and District Kangra, (shortly referred to as the suit land), being ancestral and the parties being agriculturists and being governed by Kangra custom have not been controverted. 4. The trial Court held that the sale in question was for consideration and legal necessity; that sale was not collusive as alleged ; that the parties being Girth were governed by Kangra custom in the matter of alienation and succession and also that the suit land in question was ancestral. Further it held that defendant No. 2 the vendor was not a man of immoral habits and spend-thrift. 5. The learned District Judge on appeal found that the mortgage of the suit land transcted earlier, has not been questioned and the fact that the mortgage was also without legal necessity raised by the respondents before him, cannot be allowed to be raised. 5. The learned District Judge on appeal found that the mortgage of the suit land transcted earlier, has not been questioned and the fact that the mortgage was also without legal necessity raised by the respondents before him, cannot be allowed to be raised. However, it has held that the initial burden was on the defendant to show that the sale was on account of legal necessity and in the present case Smt Gitan Devi, DW-4 the purchaser has failed to show that the made any such enquiry. Despite holding that the mortgage executed by defendant No 2, the vendor, still continues to subsist as the same has not been questioned in the suit, the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. On the said findings, the first appellate court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with no orders as to costs. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the first appellate court the appellant has come up in this Regular Second Appeal under Para-41 of the Punjab Courts Act, read with section 100, C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kangra, dated February 21, 1983 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 7. I have beard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and I have also carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. In such like cases, the basic principle is that where purchaser acts in good faith after due enquiry and is able to show that the sale was justified by legal necessity and did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of the necessity, the mere fact that part of the price is not proved to have been applied to a necessary purpose does not invalidate the sale. Once it is so done the burden is then shifted upon the sons to prove that the debt was contracted by the father for immoral or illegal purpose and that the alienee had noticed that the debt was so contracted. It is not necessary for the alienee to show that he made proper enquiry as to the purpose of the loan or to prove that the money was brrowed for the benefit of the family. It is not necessary for the alienee to show that he made proper enquiry as to the purpose of the loan or to prove that the money was brrowed for the benefit of the family. But as pointed out by their lordships in Lohar Amrit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantllal Jethalal and others, (1960) 3 SCR 842, the burden lies on the sons who challenged the alienation to prove not merely that the antecedent debt was immoral but also that the mortgagee or alienee had notice that the debt was so contracted. Thus where joint ancestral property has passed out of a joint family, either under a conveyance executed by a father in consideration of an antecedent debt or in order to raise money to pay off antecedent debt, or under a sale in execution of a decree of fathers debt, his sons by reasons of their duty to pay their fathers debt cannot recover that property, unless they show that the debts were contracted for immoral purposes and that the purchaser had notice that they were so contracted. The burden is not discharged by showing that the father lived an extravagant or immoral life, there must be a direct connection between the debt of immorality set up by the sons. 9. In the Instant case, the lower Court has held that the defendant No 2 was not a person of immoral habits or spendthrift. Further the mortgage by defendant No, 2 Sh. Nidha of his 1/3rd share of the property, i.e., the suit land is admitted by the plaintiffs as deposed by Pritam Chand PW-3 in his statement and this fact has not been challenged. Ex. D-2 registered mortgage deed show that defendant No. 2 the father of the plaintiffs had mortgaged the suit land for consideration of Rs 630 which amount was sought for by him for the construction of his house. The mortgage was effected in favour of defendant No 1 Gitan Devis husband on 23rd February, 1965, The recital in the instant sale-deed Ex D-l transacted on 17-2-1966 positively show that the sale in question was effected for the payment of the antecedent debt and money to the extent of Rs. 390 borrowed by defendant No. 2 for the domestic as also for his personal use and Rs.180 was paid for the expenses incurred qua sale-deed in question. 390 borrowed by defendant No. 2 for the domestic as also for his personal use and Rs.180 was paid for the expenses incurred qua sale-deed in question. This factum of existence of antecedent debt was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs as also defendants No. 1 and 2 and there was no need of making further enquiry by defendant No. 1. Also the question that the said mortgage was also without legal necessity, has also not been allowed to be raised by the Ld. first appellate court. Besides, the plaintiffs reside alongwith defendant No. 2, as per statement made by Pritam Chand one of the plaintiffs appearing as PW-3. He has no where stated that the earlier mortgage was created for no consideration and without legal necessity. Thus in the circumstances in view of the legal proposition accepted by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Luhar Amrit Lal Negji (supra) the burden was heavy upon the plaintiffs to prove that the sale in question was without legal necessity or for no consideration which fact remains unproved. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned District Judge while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The instant sale was, thus, for payment of antecedent bebt. 10. The debt due to husband of Gitan Devi defendant No. 2, the purchaser, was an antecedent debt and all doubts on subject has been set at rest by the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Manga Prasad, AIR 1924 PC 50. As pointed out by their lordships an antecedent debt means a debt antecedent in fact as well as in time, that is to say, that the debt must be truly independent and not part of the transaction impeached. The requirement of this definition are satisfied in the present case. 11. Now the question arises whether the sale which the vendor had to make in order to pay off his antecedent debt can be impeached simply because the vendee has not established the necessity for a portion of a price. 12. As regards Rs. 390 there can be no doubt that the payment of the money has been established, but the vendee, defendant No. 1 has not proved the necessity for this item The question, therefore, arises whether the transaction should be disturbed because it has been shown that 2/3rd of the total consideration was used for necessary purpose. 12. As regards Rs. 390 there can be no doubt that the payment of the money has been established, but the vendee, defendant No. 1 has not proved the necessity for this item The question, therefore, arises whether the transaction should be disturbed because it has been shown that 2/3rd of the total consideration was used for necessary purpose. Now the rule laid down by the Privy Council is to the effect "that where the purchaser acts in good faith after due enquiry and is able to show that the sale was justified by legal necessity, the mere fact that part of the price is not proved to have been applied to a necessary purpose does not invalidate the sale as held in Sri Krishan Dass v. Nathu Ram, AIR 1927 PC 37 and Ram Sunder Lai v. Lachhmi Narain, AIR 1929 PC 143. It is to be observed that in the latter case legal necessity was proved by the vendee to the extent of Rs 7,744 out of the total price of Rs. 10,767 yet the sale was up held On the same analogy the sale in question is liable to be up held. The learned District Judge has erred in holding that defendant No 1 in the instant case had failed to plead or prove the legal necessity. In fact as observed above, the mortgage on the suit land had been effected not only to the knowledge of the plaintiffs but also to that of the defendant No. 1 in favour of latters husband vide registered sale-deed which tantamount to a notice to the entire public. 13. I accordingly accept the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge by restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs, suit with costs throughout. Appeal allowed.