JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: Plaintiff has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby the dismissal of this suit for declaration etc. has been upheld. 2. Suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that sale deed registered on 20.6.1973 at Hamirpur as well as Mutation No.244 dated 29.3.1975 in respect of land measuring 8 kanals 19 marlas situate in Tika Kangru, Mauja Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur executed by Jaswant Singh defendant No.2 father of the plaintiff in favour of Mehar Singh, defendant No. 1 is null and void as well as inoperative because it was made without legal necessity. Defendant No.2 was alleged to be a drunkard and womaniser. According to the plaintiff there was no necessity much less legal necessity for the sale having been effected besides this defendant No.2 was pleaded to be s person having sufficient means as well as having landed and house property. It was also pleaded that the parties being Rajput are governed by custom in the matter relating to alienation of ancestral property as in the present case and the sale in question was made by defendant No.2 for his illegal and immoral needs. 3. This suit was contested and resisted by defendant No. 1 who pleaded^ that he purchased the land from defendant No.2 and on enquiry made by him from the latter, it was informed that money is required by him "for development of land, performing marriage of his daughters. Defendant No. 1 further pleaded that the suit has been got filed by vendor defendant No.2 who is spending the amount on this litigation in respect of minor plaintiff and the latter was residing with his parents. Defendant No.2 was also stated to have constructed cow -shed as also spent money for bringing the land under plough and thus it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and merited dismissal. In replication filed by the plaintiff all the pleas raised in the written statement were controverted and those averred in the plaint were reiterated. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff and Jaswant defendant are governed by custom in matters of alienation? If so, what that cuctom is? OPP 2. Whether the land in suit is ancestral qua the plaintiff and defendant Jaswant? OPP. 3. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff and Jaswant defendant are governed by custom in matters of alienation? If so, what that cuctom is? OPP 2. Whether the land in suit is ancestral qua the plaintiff and defendant Jaswant? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is collusive as alleged? OPD-1. 4. Whether the sale is for legal necessity and for consideration ? OPD-1. 5.^ Whether the sale is valid as an act of good management ? OPD-1. 6. What is the effect of the elder son of vendor not filing the suit ? OPD-1. 7. Relief. 5. Trial Court found Issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, Issue No.3 was found against defendant No 1, whereas Isues Nos. 4 and 5 were found in his favour, Issue No.6 was held to be having no effect and consequently under Issue No.7 the suit was dismissed. The matter haying been taken up in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it met the same fate and it is in this background that the present appeal has been filed. 6. On 12.10.1990 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below that the sale made by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant was for legal necessity are vitiated due to misreading the evidence and misinterpreting the documentary evidence on record ?" 7. Actual date intimation was sent to respondent No.2 for 23.6.1997, but he did not appear as such the matter v, as heard in his absence and learned counsel for the parties made their submissions. 8. Shri J.R. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts below regarding the sale impugned in the suit made vide Ex. D-l being for legal necessity are not correct an according to him both the Courts below have fallen into error while holding so. According to Sh. Thakur there was no legal evidence which could be translated against his client to show that there was any necessity much less legal necessity compelling the sale of the land in question by defendant No.2 his father in favour of defendant No.l. In support of his this submission Shri J.R. Thakur has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence on record. 9. 9. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Sharma while supporting the judgments of the Courts below submitted that there is ample evidence on record to establish that after effecting sale, defendant No.2 had constructed retaining wall to protect his land as well as constructed/made improvement to his house as also performed Chawarkha (fourth death anniversary) of his step mother. According to Shri R.K. Sharma as a prudent person his client made enquiries as to why and for what reason defendant No.2 is effecting the sale in question and in response to this enquiry of his client, J as want Singh defendant informed defendant No. 1 that it was for aforesaid necessity that sale is being effected. Whether the money actually was spent or not is no concern of his client, although he pointed out that in the present case there is enough evidence to show that money had in fact been spent on the aforesaid requirement of the defendant No.l. 10. After having considered the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as after going through the evidence on record, one thing is certain that the sale in question was effected on 20.6.1973. There is evidence on record to show that about 12/13 years ago when the statements of witnesses were recorded, defendant.No.2 did perform the marriage of one of his daughters, raised construction of danga near his house as also had pat up retaining walls in his fields. This is the factual side of the matter. Shri JR. Thakur in this behalf made an attempt to show that so far performance of these acts by defendant No.2 is concerned, the money spent thereon was not out of the sale proceed but defendant No.2 had otherwise enough amount keeping in view his financial position as well as the income he was deriving from his agricultural pursuits. 11. So far evidence relating to the money having been spent on the development of the house, marriage of his daughter as well as Chawarkh of his step mother is concerned, reference can usefully be made to the statements of DW-1 Mehar Singh and DW-9 Mahantu. Similarly documents Ex. D-3 agreement to sell dated 22.1.1973 endorsement on its back vide Ex. D-2 having been made by defendant Jaswant Singh as well as execution of sale deed Ex. Similarly documents Ex. D-3 agreement to sell dated 22.1.1973 endorsement on its back vide Ex. D-2 having been made by defendant Jaswant Singh as well as execution of sale deed Ex. D-l is concerned, all these documents stands duly proved from the statements of defendants witnesses No.l to 7. In addition to defendants evidence, plaintiffs witnesses having also admitted the performance of marriage, construction of retaining wall near the house as well as performance of Chawarkh of his step-mother by Jaswant Singh. Reference in this behalf can be usefully made to the statements of PW-2 Hari Singh, PW-3 Roop Singh, PW- 4 Sohan Singh and PW-5 Jaswant Singh. That being so on the basis of evidence on record, the finding recorded by the Courts below call for no interference at this stage. This is in addition to the fact that these are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below which are based on proper apprciation of evidence both oral as well as documentary. 12. Now coming to the legal aspect of the case, as to what constitutes legal necessity. In this behalf, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the custom does not have to remain static with the advancement in society. The customs also keep on varying with die time. While examining this aspect of the matter, situation which exists as on date has to be considered. While considering the fact that what was a necessary item of expenditure a few decades ago may not remain the same in the changing society. In this behalf die approach does not have to pedantic and further the matter cannot be looked into with some fixed notions. If this approach is adopted, there cannot be any human progress. That being so the matter could not be approached from a narrow or limited point of view. Considering the present case in the light »f this position1, there is enough evince to show that the family of the defendant No.2 was expanding, he had three daughters one of whom was married, besides his sons and mother and above all he also required money for making additions / improvements to his house as well as for providing retaining walls to his land to make improvements for generating income therefrom. 13. 13. Before getting the sale deed executed in his favour, defendant No. 1 had enquired from defendant No.2 as to why he wanted to effect the sale in question. This was all that the appellant did it as a prudent person. Although there is evidence on record of this case to show that defendant No.2 spent money as aforesaid, even if he had not spent the money, it cannot be said that the legal necessity held out by the vendor, defendant No.2 in the present case did not exist The evidence of the plaintiff establishes that the defendant did spend the money in the aforesaid pursuits although in the next breath they have gone on record to say that firstly the money was not required by the defendant No.2 for the said purpose and secondly he otherwise had money, this in addition to the fact that all the witnesses of the plaintiff in a parrot like manner have stated that defendant No.2 was a drunkard, womaniser and indulged in gambling and therefore there was no necessity for him to have effected the sale in question. From the evidence of the plaintiff, it can safely be said that it does not inspire confidence. In fact the action of the defendant No. 2 in having executed the sale deed vide Ex. D-l in favour of the plaintiff was an act of prudent management which justified the legal necessity. 14. No other point has been urged in support of this appeal on behalf of the appellant 15. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Appeal dismissed. -