Niamatullah, A C J - (1.)This is a plain, tiff's second appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of the property specified ate the foot of the plaint by annulment of a sale deed executed on 8 June 1931, by his brother, Pitambar Singh and his first cousin, Maharaj Singh. The Court of first instance decreed the suit to the extent of the plaintiff's share and dismissed it as regards the share of his brother, Pitambar Singh. The plaintiff had not claimed any relief in respect of the share of his cousin, Maharaj Singh who was separate. On appeal by defendant 1, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit in its entirety holding that the consideration of the sale deed so far as it was in respect of the property belonging to the plaintiff and Pitambar Singh was such as justified the sale of the shares of both the brothers, The plaintiff has preferred the present appeal and challenges the correctness of the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. The following pedigree will ex. plain the position of the principal parties to this case:
(2.)The family possessed a small zamindari share in village Malawan, mahal Mahtab Singh, pargana Sonhar, district Etah. It is common ground that half of it belonged to Maharaj Singh whose branch had separated from the plaintiff's branch some time before the execution of the sale deed in question. The other half belonged to Mukat Singh and his two sons. The sale deed dated 8 June 1931 related to the zamindari property referred to above. The consideration was Rs. 2500 which was made up mostly of sums due under earlier transactions of loan. It is not disputed that Rs. 1181-8-0 was due from Maharaj Singh whose half share was conveyed in lieu thereof by the sale deed in question. The remaining consideration which is impugned by the plaintiff is shown on the face of the sale deed as made up of several items due from Mukat Singh and his sons and forms the consideration of the other half. Those items are detailed below :(1) Rs. 674 due under a deed of simple mortgage for Rs. 600, dated 22 May, 1929, executed by Mukat Singh and Pitambar Singh in favour of defendants 2 and 3. (2) Rs. 224 due under a promissory note dated 18 May 1930, executed by Mukat Singh in favour of defendants 2 and 3. (3) Rs. 370 due under a promissory note dated 20th February 1931, executed by Pitam bar Singh, defendant 4, in favour of defendants 2 and 3. (4) Rs. 50 advanced in cash at the time of the sale deed for the expenses of registration, etc.
(3.)The total of these sums comes to Rs. 1318 which is more than half of Rs. 2500, the consideration of the sale deed dated 8 June 1931. It is admitted that Mukat Singh died some time between 18 May 1930, when the promissory note of that data was executed by him, and 8 June 1931, when the sale deed in question was executed by his son Pitambar Singh, defendant 4 and Maharaj Singh. After the execution of the sale deed already referred to, defendant 1 instituted a suit for preemption and has since become the owner of the property oonveyed by that sale deed. The lower Appellate Court has found that the sum of Rs. 674 due under the deed of simple mortgage represented a debt payable by Mukat Singh and was therefore binding on his sons. As regards the second item, it has found that it was borrowed by Mukat Singh for defraying the expenses of the plaintiff's marriage. The validity of this item has been admitted before us. The lower Appellate Court has also found that item third was binding on the plaintiff because it represents a debt which had been contracted by Pitambar Singh, defendant 4, for the par. chase of bullocks for the family and for the gauna ceremony of the plaintiff. The last item has been found to be valid because the rest of the consideration of the sale deed is valid. The learned advocate for the appellant has contested the findings of the lower Appellate Court on items (1) and (3) only. We proceed to consider his contentions in regard to them.