Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This first appeal has landed on my board after 26 years of its institution and being old matter, refusing any further accommodation, arguments were heard at length and record, almost in torn condition, was painstakingly perused with the assistance of learned counsels. 2. This first appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No.165/1982 - Birbal S/o Asha Ram vs. Likhma Ram and Ors. The suit was filed for cancellation of sale-deeds Ex.7 to 11 executed on 23.1.1973 and 24.1.1973 in respect of agricultural land situated in Chak No. 32 GG, Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar. The pedigree of the family as given on page 2 of the impugned judgment dated 28.9.1985 is given below for ready reference : NANU Budhar (deceased) Dhanna Mamraj Surja (adopted son deceased) Likhma Ram (Defendant) Duli Chand (Defendant) Asha (died June 1976) Surja (deceased) Adopted by Budhar Birbal (Plaintiff) 3. The land in question was sold by Asha Ram, father of plaintiff Birbal Ram in the year 1973 and after 3 years of such sale in question, he expired in the year 1976. His father Dhanna died in the year 1937 (sic 1973) and other brother Budhar also died after Dhanna issueless. The defendant Likhma Ram and Duli Chand are sons of third brother Mam Raj. The land in question in total measured 84 bighas, which was partitioned between three brothers sons of Nanu, each got 28 bighas of land in question. It has further come in the impugned judgment that said Asha Ram, father of the plaintiff Birbal Ram purchased 10 bighas of land for Rs. 2400/- on 5.1.1945 from Mamraj his uncle and thus, with him, 38 bighas of land became available. After the death of Budhar, his 28 bighas fell into the share of Asha Ram and Mam Raj; 14 bighas each and mutation entries in this respect were recorded on 31.10.1957. Thus, Asha Ram in total got 52 bighas of land and Mamraj got 32 bighas of land in question. After the death of Budhar, his 28 bighas fell into the share of Asha Ram and Mam Raj; 14 bighas each and mutation entries in this respect were recorded on 31.10.1957. Thus, Asha Ram in total got 52 bighas of land and Mamraj got 32 bighas of land in question. The said agricultural land being ancestral in nature was sold by Asha Ram by different sale-deeds Ex.7 to 11 in favour of defendants Likhma Ram and Duli Chand S/o Mamraj and thus, cousins of seller Asha Ram and also in favour of strangers Satpal Singh, Resham Singh, Prakat Singh, all sons of Trilok Singh and one agreement to sell was executed in favour of Trilok Singh himself. The sales in question were effected in the year 1973 as already stated above for consideration and said sale-deeds were challenged by the plaintiff Birbal Ram mainly on the ground that there was no legal necessity of the family for his father Asha Ram to have sold the said joint family property and therefore, the sale-deeds were void and deserves to be cancelled. 4. The learned Court below after recording evidence has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and except issue No.3 about the receipt of consideration by seller Asha Ram, which was decided against the plaintiff Birbal Ram, holding that such consideration was received by Asha Ram, other issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff Birbal Ram and the trial Court below has held that said Asha Ram had no right to sell the ancestral agricultural land, a joint family property in question and thus, the sale-deeds Ex.7 to 11 have been cancelled by the learned Court below. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants Likhma Ram and others have approached this Court by way of present appeal. 5. Mr. R.K. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants submitted that the learned Court below has erred in decreeing the suit and canceling the sale-deeds in question because firstly atleast 10 bighas out of 52 bighas sold by Asha Ram, was his self-acquired property having been purchased by him in the year 1945 when he was 22 years of age, therefore, the same being in joint family property, could be sold in his own right. Secondly, he also urged that the evidence in the form of his daughter's statement Rukma D.W.1 had clearly come on record n which she has stated that she was living with her father after her husband died and her father was indebted to various persons in connection with meeting expenditure against his son's (plaintiff Birbal) criminal case and also to meet the expenses of marriage of his four daughters and his grand-daughters viz., Daughters of daughters, therefore, there was legal necessity to sell the agricultural land in question to meet such expenditures. The statement of said daughter Rukma was also read before this Court. He submitted that plaintiff worked as Patwari. He therefore, prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the impugned decree and judgment to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D.R. Bhandari vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is perfectly just and legal and the learned Court below while deciding issue No.2 has discussed the entire evidence in detail and has found that there was no legal necessity for the plaintiff's father Asha Ram to have sold entire 52 bighas of land to these six defendants as the marriage of 4 daughters had already taken place much prior to 1973 and no grand-daughters' marriage took place around 1973 and therefore, there was no compelling family need to have sold the said agricultural land. He submitted that the plaintiff Birbal Ram had right by birth in the said joint family property and therefore, without his consent as he was adult when such sales took place, the sale in question could not be validly made. He submitted that the plaintiff Birbal Ram had right by birth in the said joint family property and therefore, without his consent as he was adult when such sales took place, the sale in question could not be validly made. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the evidence of various defence witnesses, he submitted that on none of the statements, such necessity was mentioned and even in the statement of D.W.5 Rukma, she had not stated as to from whom, such loan was taken by her father Asha Ram and how much was the loan amount and for repayment of which, it became necessary to sell the entire 52 bighas of land in question and he submitted that even 10 bighas of land purchased by Asha Ram from Mamraj was out of joint family property, namely, agricultural income of ancestral agricultural land and therefore, such purchase in the name of Asha Ram was also of joint family property in which the plaintiff Birbal Ram had his own share and since no partition had taken place between him and his father, such agricultural land could not be sold and sale-deeds deserve to be cancelled. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his case for need of family necessity, sale of joint family property by Karta without legal necessity etc. 1. Bhura Ram vs. Pema - 1996 RLW 492 2. Dudh Nath vs. Sat Narain Ram - AIR 1966 (Allahabad) 315. 3. Nasirabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Gyanchand Jain - 1970 WLN 248 4. Kusum Chand vs. Kanhaiya Lal - AIR 1974 Raj. 73 = 1973 RLW 378 5. Giani Ram vs. Ramji Lal - AIR 1969 SC 1144 6. Smt. Sukla Chowdhury vs. Miss Manjolyn Tweedie - AIR 1975 Calcutta 427 7. M/s. Trojon and Co. vs. Nagappa Chettiar - AIR 1953 SC 235 8. Mrs. hem Nolini Judah vs. Mrs. Isoline Sarojbashini Bose - AIR 1962 SC 1471 9. Gurbux Singh vs. Bhoora Lal - AIR 1964 SC 1810 10. R.S. Maddanappa vs. Chjandramma - AIR 1965 SC 1812 11. Adhivekka vs. Hanamayya Kom Venkatesh - 2007 AIR SCW 3060 12. Srinivas Krishnarao Kango vs. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. - AIR 1954 SC 379 7. Isoline Sarojbashini Bose - AIR 1962 SC 1471 9. Gurbux Singh vs. Bhoora Lal - AIR 1964 SC 1810 10. R.S. Maddanappa vs. Chjandramma - AIR 1965 SC 1812 11. Adhivekka vs. Hanamayya Kom Venkatesh - 2007 AIR SCW 3060 12. Srinivas Krishnarao Kango vs. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. - AIR 1954 SC 379 7. The cross-objections have also been filed by the plaintiff - respondent in the present appeal for finding against him on issue No.3 as to the receipt of consideration by his father Asha Ram for such sale and pointing out contradictions in the statements of defence witnesses and stipulations in the sale-deeds, the learned counsel Mr. D.R. Bhandari urged that cross-objections also deserve to be allowed. 8. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the record and impugned judgments and judgments cited at the bar. 9. It may be stated here that stay granted in favour of defendants - appellant by this Court on 14.5.1986 stood vacated by stay dismissal order dated 9.10.1991 as the defendants - appellants failed to comply with the condition of deposit of mesne profits and their travel upto Apex court also failed vide dismissal of SLP No. 14665/1989 on 10.9.1990 against the order dated 25.9.1989 of this Court and thus, the plaintiff Birbal Ram is in possession of land in question now. 10. As far as findings on issue No.3 are concerned about the receipt of consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants had not paid consideration for sale to Asha Ram and the learned Court below has discussed the evidence in the form of D.W.1 Likhna Ram, D.W.2 Trilok Singh, D.W.3 Pragat Singh, and D.W.4 Satpal Singh, who had clearly stated that consideration was paid in front of Sub-Registrar, who registered the such sale-deeds. This Court is of the opinion that as far as receipt of consideration by Asha Ram is concerned, the plaintiff has failed to prove such non-receipt of consideration and therefore, said issue No.3 has rightly been decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. The cross-objections filed by the plaintiff have also no force and they are hereby dismissed. 11. The cross-objections filed by the plaintiff have also no force and they are hereby dismissed. 11. However, as far as issue No.2 about the legal necessity is concerned, which goes to the root of the matter, from the evidence on record, it appears that the learned Court below has rightly decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff. The sale-deeds in question were executed on 23.1.1973 to 25.1.1973 and around this time, no compelling legal necessity has been established to sell the entire joint family property in the form of 52 bighas of agricultural land by the father of plaintiff viz., Asha Ram. The statement of D.W. 5 Rukma (daughter of Asha Ram) is vague and merely saying that father was indebted and to discharge such debt and to meet the expenditures of marriage of their daughters, who were married prior to 1973 and last daughter Santo was married about 2 years prior to 1973, there was no such necessity to sell the entire 52 Bighas of land. 10 bighas of land which is said to have been purchased by the father of the plaintiff, namely, Asha Ram out of his own fund is also not established to be self-acquired property inasmuch as in the year 1945, said Asha Ram was only 22 years of age and at that time, such purchase made for Rs. 2400/- cannot be said to be out of his independent income. The only source of income of said Asha Ram was ancestral agricultural land. Therefore, income out of such agricultural land would be deemed to be joint family income and the purchase of agricultural land out of such funds would also belong to joint family and in the said joint family property, obviously, the plaintiff being son of Asha Ram got right by birth and therefore, in absence of any proof of such legal necessity, the sale-deeds executed by Asha Ram cannot be said to be valid. 12. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court below has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. However, consideration received by the father Asha Ram under these sale-deeds which have been cancelled and which has been proved to have been received, deserves to be refunded back to the defendants-appellants. 13. 12. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court below has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. However, consideration received by the father Asha Ram under these sale-deeds which have been cancelled and which has been proved to have been received, deserves to be refunded back to the defendants-appellants. 13. Accordingly, this appeal of the defendants is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the plaintiff are dismissed and while upholding the judgment and decree under appeal as far as cancellation of sale-deeds is concerned, it is directed that consideration received under these sale-deeds shall be refunded back to the defendants out of estate of Asha Ram which now has devolved upon the plaintiff Birbal Ram. The amount of such consideration shall bear simple interest from today @ 9% per annum. The said money be refunded back to the defendants within a period of 6 months from today. If it is not so refunded by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall pay interest @ 12% after six months, till actual refund is made by him to the defendants. 14. With these modifications, this appeal is partly allowed. Decree be made accordingly. No order as to costs.