G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court reversing on appeal those of the trial Court and dismissing his suit for a declaration that the exchange in dispute was invalid. The facts:
(2.) THE Appellant/Plaintiff claimed that he was the adopted son of Respondent/Defendant No. 1 and deed of adoption was duly registered on July 8, 1969. The suit land is ancestral qua the Plaintiff and are Defendant No. 1 the parties are Ror by caste and are dependant upon agriculture; according to the agricultural custom, the ancestral property cannot be sold or exchanged without legal necessity or otherwise justified as an act of good management. Defendant No. 1 was owner of land situate in village Jandaula. Some part of the land was Nehri and the other was Chahi; Defendant No. 1 was under the influence of Defendants No. 2 to 4 and they put pressure on the former and under their pressure he exchanged good land situate in the revenue estate of village Jandaula with that of Defendant No. 2 to 4 situate at village Pabala which is 2 1/2 miles away from village Jandaula and is mostly barani; the mutations exchange were attested on September 6, 1969; the land given in exchange is of the value of Rs. 1.25 lakhs, whereas the land received in exchange by Defendant No. 1 cannot be valued more than Rs. 20,000. He is not bound by the exchange since it was neither effected for legal necessity nor was an act of good management. Defendants No. 2 to 4 contested the suit and took a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable under law and that the exchange was otherwise valid. They further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 was having strained relations with his neighbour and he fearing danger to his life from his neighbour thought it proper to exchange his land with those of Defendants No. 2 to 4 and shift there; hence for this reason, the exchange was for legal necessity and also an act of good management.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is the adoptive son of Parsa ? 2. Whether the exchange of the land in suit was for consideration, legal necessity and an act of good management ? 3. Whether the land in dispute is ancestral qua the Plaintiff and the alienors ? 4. Whether the Plaintiff and the alienors are governed by custom ? If so, what that custom is ? 5.WHETHER the suit is not maintainable as alleged ? Whether the next friend of the Plaintiff is not a proper and fit person to file the suit ? 6.WHETHER the suit is collusive ? 7.WHETHER the suit is benami ? Whether the plaint needs amended as alleged ? 8.RELIEF . ;