JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. The judgment and decree dated 11.11.2003 passed by learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 107-G/XIII/2002 whereby on reversal of the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2002 of learned trial Court the suit has been decreed is under challenge before this Court in the present appeal. The complaint is that learned lower appellate Court has not taken into consideration legal as well as factual aspects of the matter correctly and the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed under some pre-conceived notion. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the sale of suit land by his father deceased defendant No. 2 Rattan Singh was without legal necessity. He, however, failed to prove this aspect of the matter. Learned lower appellate Court has not only misunderstood the proposition of Hindu Law but exceeded its jurisdiction also while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. The customs governing the ancestral land in the area though were pressed into service, however, without producing any evidence to substantiate the same. The alternative plea of the sale being without legal necessity was not permissible. Learned lower appellate Court rather has intermingled the whole issue while partly relying upon customs and particularly on Hindu Law. Such an approach was not legally permissible. The Court below has acted with material illegality and irregularity while arriving at a conclusion that the suit by reversioner to challenge the alienation on the legal necessity was competent. The case law as relied upon has not only been misunderstood but misinterpreted also. The oral evidence produced by the plaintiff, highly inadmissible, was also wrongfully relied upon. The impugned judgment was passed by adopting method of pick and choose from the testimony of the witnesses and erroneously concluded that defendant No. 1-appellant has failed to prove the sale of the suit property for legal necessity. The material evidence in the form of affidavits Ext. DW-2/D and Ext. DW-2/E having come on record has also been erroneously misconstrued. Learned lower appellate Court allegedly confused the whole concept of "coparcenary", "joint Hindu family" as well as "ancestral property". There was no evidence qua the plaintiff having joint Hindu family with his father and also that the property in the hands of Sh. Rattan Chand was coparcenary. DW-2/D and Ext. DW-2/E having come on record has also been erroneously misconstrued. Learned lower appellate Court allegedly confused the whole concept of "coparcenary", "joint Hindu family" as well as "ancestral property". There was no evidence qua the plaintiff having joint Hindu family with his father and also that the property in the hands of Sh. Rattan Chand was coparcenary. Merely that the property in the hands of the father of the plaintiff-respondent was ancestral would not have entitled the plaintiff to have instituted the suit asserting therein the alleged reversionary rights to challenge the alienation. It is only customs prevalent in the area pressed into service to quash the sale of the suit land and the principles of Hindu law were wrongly applied to the present controversy. As per the evidence available on record, the plaintiff was not residing with his father deceased-defendant No. 2 Rattan Chand. Being so, there is no question of constitution of joint Hindu family and the suit property being coparcenary. The findings to the contrary as such have been claimed to be contrary to the evidence available on record. 2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. When the plaintiff-respondent primarily filed the suit on the basis of agricultural custom, in asserting his reversionary right to assail the alienation made, was not it incumbent for the plaintiff-respondent to have properly pleaded and proved the existence of the agricultural custom? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has acted with material illegality in considering the case of the plaintiff-respondent to be based on Hindu Law, which plea was raised by way of amendment in the alternative? Has not the Lower Appellate Court further acted beyond its jurisdiction in misconstruing the true import of the term "ancestral property", "coparcenary property" and Joint Hindu family"? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has taken essentially wrong approach in the matter in ignoring the material evidence i.e. the admission of Shri Rattan Chand, Defendant No. 2, in affidavits Exhibit DW-2/D and Exhibit DW-2/E by asserting that the sale made by him was for legal necessity? Has not the Lower Appellate Court committed grave error of law in raising inferences from the testimonies of the witnesses of the parties to come to the conclusion that Shri Rattan Chand was having sufficient income from the agricultural land and was not in need of any money? 4. Has not the Lower Appellate Court committed grave error of law in raising inferences from the testimonies of the witnesses of the parties to come to the conclusion that Shri Rattan Chand was having sufficient income from the agricultural land and was not in need of any money? 4. When the Lower Appellate Court has taken a wrong conclusion of fact that the property in the hand of Shri Rattan Chand was ancestral and belonged to the Joint Hindu Family/coparcenary when there was enough evidence available on the record showing that the plaintiff-respondent never constituted a coparcenary/Joint Hindu Family with his father Shri Rattan Chand? Are not the findings of the Lower Appellate Court based on no evidence rendering the impugned Judgment and Decree erroneous and perverse?" 3. During the course of arguments, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, has fairly confined the claim of defendant No. 1-appellant to the extent that the sale of the suit land was for legal necessity or not. Such claim falls under substantial questions of law at Sr. Nos. 2, 3 and 6 supra. It is, therefore, deemed appropriate to decide the questions so raised first. 4. It is significant to note that learned trial Court while answering issues No. 1(a) and 2 has concluded that the parties are governed by Hindu law and the suit land is ancestral qua the plaintiff meaning thereby that both issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff. The findings so recorded have attained finality being not assailed any further by the appellant-defendant No. 1. Being so, now, the plea that neither the suit property is coparcenary nor Hindu law is applicable in the given facts and circumstances of this case, of course, learned trial Court while answering issue No. 3 in favour of the appellant-defendant No. 1 has held that the land was sold by defendant No. 2 Rattan Chand (since dead) vide registered sale-deed dated 16.4.1998 Ext. DW-1/A for legal necessity. Learned lower Appellate court, however, has disagreed with the findings so recorded and to the contrary on perusal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record has concluded that the defendants particularly appellant-defendant No. 1 has failed to discharge the onus on them that the sale of the suit land vide sale deed Ext. DW-1/A was for legal necessity. 5. DW-1/A was for legal necessity. 5. On having gone through the facts of the case, admittedly, the previous owners of the suit land entered in Khata No. 48, Khatoni Nos. 95 & 96, Kh. Nos. 887, 888 and 889 situated in Mohal and Mauja Drang, Tehsil Dehra Distt. Kangra were one Sant Ram and Rattan Chand (deceased defendant No. 2), real brothers in relation. Aforesaid Sant Ram had sold his share in the suit land to one Subhash. Deceased Rattan Chand initiated partition proceedings and on partition became the owner of the suit land. The suit land came in the hands of deceased defendant No. 2 as ancestral property. 6. The complaint is that the plaintiff never constituted joint Hindu family with his father deceased defendant No. 2 Rattan Chand as he was residing at Faridabad. The deceased Rattan Chand was residing with his elder son Prakash Chand. He was being looked after by said Sh. Prakash Chand. He, being an old and aged person, was not in a position to maintain himself, therefore, he sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid by him to his son Prakash Chand for repair of old house and also to impart education to his children as he allegedly had no means to afford the expenses required for the education of his children. However, the plea so raised by the defendants in the written statement is not at all proved satisfactorily for the reason that in the sale deed Ext. DW-1/A nothing to this effect finds mention. No doubt, in the oral evidence produced by the defendants, an effort has been made to prove that the sale of the suit land by deceased defendant No. 2 Rattan Chand in favour of defendant No. 1 was for legal necessity, however, unsuccessfully for the reason that the best evidence which could have thrown some light qua this aspect of the matter was the sale deed Had the sale of the suit land been for legal necessity or deceased defendant No. 2 was in need of money for his maintenance or to conduct cases pertaining to joint Hindu family property or the repair/construction of old house, recitals to that effect would have definitely been there in the sale deed. Even providing money to one of the sons for providing education to his children does not constitute legal necessity for the reason that thereby depriving the other co-sharers from the suit land is not legally permissible. A reference in this behalf can be made to para 242 of Mulla Hindu Law, 22nd Edition (Page 378) which reveals that in a case where the joint family property is sold, it is the duty of the purchaser to enquire into the necessity for the sale or mortgage. Also that recitals of legal necessity in sale deeds are legally admissible in evidence. We can draw support in this regard from para 243 (page 381) also. 7. Interestingly enough, the affidavits Ext. DW-2/D and Ext. DW-2/E though have been heavily relied upon to substantiate this aspect of the matter, however, again unsuccessfully for the reason that the same on the face of it were executed much after the execution of the sale deed Ext. DW-1/A i.e. on 29.6.1998 but the institution of the suit also which was instituted on 12.5.1998. These affidavits, in the considered opinion of this Court have been got sworn in from deceased defendant No. 2 Rattan Chand to carve out a false case that the land was sold for legal necessity. Otherwise also, learned lower appellate Court has rightly held that the affidavits can only be relied upon in evidence had the same been permitted to be produced by the Court. In the case in hand, these affidavits were produced by the defendants at a stage when evidence was being recorded, hence on this score also, cannot be accepted as legal and valid documents. As a matter of fact, these affidavits are merely an afterthought and shown to have got sworn in from deceased defendant Rattan Chand, an old and aged person of about 90 years age at that time intentionally and deliberately to wriggle out of a situation when no recitals that the sale of the suit land was for legal necessity form part of the sale deed Ext. DW-1/A. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the Apex Court in Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013 (1) Civil Court Cases 400 (S.C.). 8. DW-1/A. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the Apex Court in Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013 (1) Civil Court Cases 400 (S.C.). 8. The plaintiff may not be residing with his father deceased defendant No. 2 Rattan Chand, however, once it is held that suit property is ancestral, he had every right, title or interest therein even right from his birth. On such plea, he cannot be ousted from claiming his share in the suit land and challenging the sale deed of the suit property, ancestral one without any legal necessity. Learned arguing counsel to substantiate the legal necessity has placed reliance on various verdicts reported in Arjan Singh v. Jagiri and another, AIR 1935 Lahore 160, Radhakrishnadas and another v. Kaluram, AIR 1967 SC 574 , Gajjan Singh and others v. Atma alias Atma Singh, Punjab Law Reporter Vol. LXX-1968 (page 195), Ronfi v. Ratnu, Punjab Law Reporter Vol. LXXI 1969 (page 17), Gitan Devi v. Vritam Singh and others, 1993 (1) Sim.L.C. 51, Maheshu v. Purshottam Singh and others, 1995 (4) SLJ 3234, Manjeet Singh v. Rajinder Singh and others, AIR 2013 HP 70 . 9. There is no quarrel to the legal principles settled in the case law cited supra. However, when as per the findings recorded by learned trial Court on issues No. 1(a) and 2 that the parties are governed by Hindu law and that the suit property was ancestral, the same could have only been sold for legal necessity and not otherwise. As already discussed in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it is difficult to believe that deceased defendant No. 2 has sold the same to defendant No. 1 for legal necessity. Being so, learned lower appellate Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while reversing the findings on issue No. 3 and decreeing the suit thereby declaring the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 without legal necessity, hence have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff to succeed the same. Defendant No. 1 was also rightly restrained from raising any construction over the suit land or changing its nature. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is affirmed. Defendant No. 1 was also rightly restrained from raising any construction over the suit land or changing its nature. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is affirmed. No orders as to costs.