JUDGMENT : P. Ray, J. - The plaintiff appellants filed a suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1979 executed by their predecessor Dayanidhi Lala was fraudulent, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, for declaration of the plaintiffs' title in the property covered by the said deed, for confirmation of their alleged possession in the said property and alternatively for recovery of possession in case they are found to be dispossessed. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that Dayanidhi was seriously ill suffering from paralysis and was in a stage of coma for a quite some time before his death. He died on 9th December, 1979. On 6th December, 1979 just three days prior to his death, defendant No. 1, a cousin, fraudulently got the impugned sale deed by which Dayanidhi and defendant No. 1 purported to have sold the dwelling house in favour of defendant No. 2, the wife of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have alleged that Dayanidhi did not and could not execute such a sale deed and in fact he did not go to the registration office at all. 3. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, stating that Dayanidhi was suffering from leprosy that the was in necessity of money for his treatment and maintence that the Impugned sale deed was legal and valid one duly executed by Dayanidhi; and that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. On the basis of such findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 4. The plaintiffs appeal before the First Appellate Court was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed. 5. The plaintiffs filed the present second appeal. In this appeal it has been urged on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants that the First Appellate Court being the final Court of fact committed substantial error in exercise of its jurisdiction in not at all considering the question of existence of legal necessity and in not arriving at any independent finding of its own. It has also been pointed out that several suspicious circumstances are clearly evident from the materials on record but the Courts below failed to take into account those circumstances while determining the dispute regarding the genuineness and validity of the disputed sale deed. 6. On a perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it appears that the learned Addl. 6. On a perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it appears that the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar did not discuss or consider anything about the existence of legal necessity. He merely recited the legal proposition in one sentence that "there is no controversy that late Dayanidhi as Manager has right to alienate his separate and joint family properties for his legal necessities. 7. It also appears' to me that the materials on record point out certain suspicious circumstances which were not adverted to. 8. In view of the above, the judgment and the decree of the First Appellate Court in T. A. No. 18/26 of 1983/82 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar are set aside. The case is remanded back to the First Appellate Court for considering whether there was any legal necessity or not and also to consider the. suspicious circumstances as may be pointed out on behalf of the Appellants in determining the genuineness, legality and validity of the impugned sale deed. The First Appellate Court will rehear the appeal afresh on the basis of the materials already on record. 9. In view of the fact that this is a suit of 1982, the First Appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records of the case. 10. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.