JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—Appellant-plaintiff Ratesh Kumar is minor. He filed civil suit through his mother, natural guardian and next friend Smt. Santosh Kumari, widow of Jagan Nath against respondent-defendant Basudev Singh Pathania for possession of this plot in dispute, which was decreed in his favour by decree and judgment dated 30th January, 1985 passed by Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Nurpur. But in the appeal preferred by Basudev Singh Pathania, the decree and judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of Ratesh Kumar was dismissed by the District Judge by his decree and judgment dated 17th August, 1988. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 2. The case set up by Ratesh Kumar in his plaint was that the plot in dispute was ancestral property, which his father Jagan Nath had inherited from his father Brij Lal and grand-father Puran Chand and it could not be sold without legal necessity under the custom by which they were governed and in the alternative under the Hindu law. According to him, his father Jagan Nath was addicted to drinking and gambling and taking benefit of his bad habits Basudev Singh Pathania got the plot in dispute alienated in his favour vide registered sale deed dated 4th January, 1982 without paying the consideration amount of Rs. 5,000 mentioned therein, as such the sale being without legal necessity was illegal, void and not binding on him. 3. Basudev Singh Pathania resisted the suit denying the allegations made therein, in general. His specific stand was that the sale deed dated 4th January, 1482 was executed by Jagan Nath of his free will and after consultation with Santosh Kumari, the mother of Ratesh Kumar and after receipt of consideration amount of Rs 5,000. He also asserted that Jagan Nath had sold the plot in dispute for legal necessity as he was in need of money for "pushing his family and to cure himself from disease." 4. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plot in dispute was ancestral and could not be sold by Jagan Nath without legal necessity under the custom by which he was governed. The trial Court also found from the assessment of the evidence on record that Jagan Nath was drunkard and gambler and he had sold the plot in dispute for the purposes of drinking and gambling and not for any legal necessity. The trial Court also found from the assessment of the evidence on record that Jagan Nath was drunkard and gambler and he had sold the plot in dispute for the purposes of drinking and gambling and not for any legal necessity. These findings have been upset by the District Judge in appeal filed by Basudev Singh Pathania. 5. This Court heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Mr. Sushil Kukreja appearing vice Mr. R. L. Sood, learned Counsel for Ratesh Kumar, has challenged the findings of District Judge and sought interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 100, C. P. C. on the ground that the District Judge has not only misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record but has also applied, essentially wrong approach and wrong tests and has also based his findings on conjectures. For making this submission he has relied upon Budhwanti and another v. Gulab Chand Prasad, AIR 1987 SC 1484 ; Dilbagrai Punjabi v. Sharad Chandra, AIR 1988 SC 1958 and Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1604. To know whether the principles laid down in these cases are attracted in the present appeal, this Court will now examine the findings of the District Judge in the backdrop of the pleadings and evidence on record. 7. The District Judge in Para 7 of his judgment has noticed that it was not disputed before him that the plot in dispute was ancestral qua Ratesh Kumar and his father Jagan Nath. It was also not disputed before him by the parties that Jagan Nath was governed by agricultural custom in respect of alienation. But the District Judge has observed in para 8.of his judgment that, "Trial Judge after having held that parties are govern ed by the agricultural custom being Brahmins has not spelled out as to what exactly that custom is". According to the District Judge, Ratesh Kumar has not led any evidence to show that precisely that custom is and also that such custom has uniformly been followed in the community to which he belongs For coming to this conclusion, he has referred to the statement of Santosh Kumari PW-1 and has mentioned that other witnesses Amar Nath PW-2, Chamel Singh PW-3 and Kihru Ram PW-4 were also silent on this aspect of the case. 8. 8. This Court finds that for coming to this conclusion the District Judge has misread the evidence produced on behalf of Ratesh Kumar and has also applied wrong approach that he was required to establish custom by clear and unambiguous evidence. From the tone and tenor of written statement filed by Basudev Singh Pathania and evidence produced by him, it is clear that he has not contested that plot in dispute is ancestral and it could not be sold by Jagan Nath without legal necessity as per the custom by which he was governed. His main stress was that Jagan Nath had sold him the plot in dispute for legal necessity of getting treatment as he was not keeping fit and for consideration of Rs. 5,000. He has not specifically denied the allegations made in para 5 of the plaint that, Jagan Nath and the plaintiff are Brahmins by caste and in matters of alienation arc governed by agricultural custom under which no male member can alienate or sell the ancestral property without any legal necessity. These are also proved by Santosh Kumari PW-1 and Amar Nath PW-2, who was on 72 years of age at the time of his deposition, who have stated in no uncertain words that they are Braimins and are governed by custom under which no person can sell his ancestral property without legal necessity. 9. It is correct that ordinary rule is that all customs, general or otherwise have to be proved as envisaged under section 57 of the Evidence Act. But if a custom has been repeatedly recognised by Courts, it becomes law of the land and Court can take judicial notice of it without formal proof. (Please see Sri Rao Venkata Mahipati Gangadara Rama Rao Bahadur v. Raja of Pittapur, AIR 1918 PC 81 and Ujagar Singh v. Mst Jeo, AIR 1959 SC 1041. Applying this principle, the Court can take judicial notice that Brahmins of district Kangra are governed by agricultural custom as held in Mr. Chinto and others v, Thebu and others, AIR 1935 Lah 985 and Tara Mani and others v. Aft. Kishen Devi, AIR 1940 Lah 33. 10. What is the custom in respect of alienation of ancestral property, is specifically pleaded and proved in the present case. Chinto and others v, Thebu and others, AIR 1935 Lah 985 and Tara Mani and others v. Aft. Kishen Devi, AIR 1940 Lah 33. 10. What is the custom in respect of alienation of ancestral property, is specifically pleaded and proved in the present case. Above all assuming Ratesh Kumar has failed to prove what was the custom, as held by the District Judge, his alternative case was required to be accepted that he is governed by Hindu Law, under which alienation by father as Karta of the joint family without legal necessity is voidable. (Please see Paragraphs 242 to 244 of Mullas Hindu Law, 14th Edition). 11. In paras 11 and 12 of his judgment that the plot in dispute was not agricultural land and had acquired the character of urban property, therefore, its sale could not be challenged on the ground of custom the District Judge has made altogether a new case for Basudev Singh Pathania, which was never pleaded or proved or argued on his behalf. For these observations he has relied upon Balwant Singh v. Mt. Sardarni Kesar Kaur and others, AIR 1934 Lah 81, in which case the Court refused to set aside the alienation on the ground of custom, on the pleased and proved facts that the alienated property was not agricultural land and that during the period of 14 years from 1911 to 1924 more than 700 alienations were made in the town but none of them had been successfully impeached. The ratio of this judgment is not applicable in the present case where it has not been denied by Basudev Singh Pathania that the plot in dispute is agricultural land. 12. On the point that sale of the plot in dispute was for legal necessity, the District Judge has though enunciated the correct legal position, yet he has not applied it correctly to the facts and circum stances proved on record. He has set aside the findings of fact of trial Court that there was no illegal necessity without analysing the pleadings and evidence on record in the right perspective. By now it is well settled that legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion, it means pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. He has set aside the findings of fact of trial Court that there was no illegal necessity without analysing the pleadings and evidence on record in the right perspective. By now it is well settled 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 proving legal necessity is on the alieance who has to prove the actual necessity or that he has made proper and bonafide enquiries about the existence of the necessity. It is also well settled that recitals of legal necessity in the transfer deed do not by themselves prove legal necessity. The recitals may be used to corroborate other evidence of the existence of legal necessity but weight to be attached to these will depend upon the circumstances. (Please see Smt. Rani and another v, Smt. Santa Bala Debnath and others, AIR 1971 SC 1028; Mukhtiar Singh v. Amarjit Singh and others, 1974 PLR 754 and Bansi Lal v. Kuldip Raj and others, AIR 1981 J & K 35). 13. From the written statement as well as the evidence produced by Basudev Singh Pathania it is clear that his case was that Jagan Nath had sold the plot in dispute for the legal necessity and not that he had made enquiries regarding the existence of such necessity and did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of such necessity. But he has failed to prove his case by producing cogent and reliable, witnesses. All the witnesses produced by him have mainly stated that Basudev Singh Pathania had paid an amount of Rs. 4,500 to Jagan Nath who told that he required money for his treatment as he was not keeping fit. No witness has deposed that he was in fact suffering from any disease and his circumstances were such that he could get money for his treatment only by selling his plot. 14. In the written statement the legal necessity alleged is, "for pushing his family and cure himself from disease," whereas, in his statement in the Court it was for purchase of medicines as told by Jagan Nath to him. He has admitted in his cross-examination that Jagan Nath was addicted to drinking and used to drink even during day time as well as in the evening. He has admitted in his cross-examination that Jagan Nath was addicted to drinking and used to drink even during day time as well as in the evening. He has shown his ignorance that Jagan Nath had lost major portion of his property for the vice of drinking. Shri B. S, Rehalja, Advocate, who had written the sale deed Ext. D-I, has appeared as DW-2 and has categorically stated in cross-examination that he was not told by Jagan Nath at the time he read the sale deed that he needed money for his treatment. According to this witness, Jagan Nath had told him that he required money for family expenditure, which he had written in the sale deed. The other witnesses Karam Singh DW-3 and Rania Ram DW-5 have only stated that on their asking Jagan Nath had told them that he was not keeping fit and required money for his treatment for which he wanted to sell his land. The statement of Karam Singh DW-3, who is a witness to sale deed Ext D-l, is prima facie procured one. He was brought by Basudev Singh Pathania from his village for the purpose of witnessing the sale deed, which clearly shows that he is not an independent witness and his statement should be scrutinized carefully. He has shown his ignorance that Jagan Nath was addicted to and died of excessive drinking but according to him he had died after 2-1/2 years from the date of registry, which is contradictory to the proved fact on the record that Jagan Nath had died after 4-5 days from the date of registration of sale deed. Another witness Chuhru Ram DW-4 has not stated in his examination-in-chief that what was the necessity for which Jagan Nath sold the plot in dispute. But in his cross-examination he has stated that at the time Jagan Nath was paid Rs 4,500 by Basudev Singh Pathania, he did tell that lie was going out for his treatment and will get the sale deed registered on his return. This witness have not stated about the necessity of Jagan Nath from their personal knowledge. They have stated what Jagan Nath told them, who was addicted to drinking and has sold major portion of his property for this vice as proved by the witness produced on behalf of Ratesh Kumar. This witness have not stated about the necessity of Jagan Nath from their personal knowledge. They have stated what Jagan Nath told them, who was addicted to drinking and has sold major portion of his property for this vice as proved by the witness produced on behalf of Ratesh Kumar. These witnesses have mainly deposed about the payment of Rs 4,500 for which no receipt was obtained from Jagan Nath. Their statement do not inspire confidence as it cannot be believed that Basudev Singh Pathania had given an amount of Rs. 4,500 to Jagan Nath just on his asking, while sitting in the shop of Rania Ram DW-5, without procuring receipt from Jagan Nath or without entering into an agreement to sell. 15. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence produced on behalf of Ratesh Kumar that Jagan Nath was drunkard as well as gambler and was not suffering from any disease for the treatment of which he required money. It is proved on record and also admitted by Basudev Singh Pathania that Santosh Kumari, wife of Jagan Nath, was in Government service for the last many years and was looking after her children and also Jagan Nath who himself was a tailor. Had he been suffering from any disease, his wife would have got him treated as she being Government servant could get the amount spent on medicines reimbursed from the Government. Therefore, from the totality of evidence produced by the parties the only conclusion which can be drawn is that Jagan Nath had sold the plot in dispute for the purposes of drinking and not for legal necessity. Basudev Singh Pathania has miserably failed to prove that it was for legal necessity. 16. Mr. S S. Kanwar, learned Counsel appearing for Basudev Singh Pathania, has tried to support the decree and judgment of the District Judge mainly on the ground that the decree, if passed, in favour of Ratesh Kumar for possession, of the plot in dispute will not be proper because besides him his mother Santosh Kumari and his three sisters who are the legal heirs of Jagan Nath have also inherited his estate This question does not arise in the present case as the decree passed in favour of Ratesh Kumar is for the benefit of all those who are entitled to inherit the estate of Jagan Nath. Another point that Issue No. 6 has remained undecided, has been raised to be rejected, because in view of the findings on other Issues, this Issue had become redundant and was rightly not determined, 17. The result of above discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The decree and judgment dated 17th August, 1988 of the District Judge is set aside and the decree and judgment dated 30th January, 1985 or Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Nurpur is affirmed. Suit of Ratesh Kumar stands decreed for declaration that sale of the plot in dispute in favour of Basudev Singh Pathania was bad and as it was not made by Jagan Nath for legal necessity and Ratesh Kumar is entitled to get back the possession of the plot in dispute from Basudev Singh Pathania. Decree for possession of the plot in dispute is also passed in favour of Ratesh Kumar. Costs easy. Appeal dismissed.